Peer Review Policy

Our Approach to Peer Review

At the International Journal of Cardiology Sciences, we see peer review as more than a gatekeeping exercise. Yes, we need to filter out work that isn't ready for publication — but that's only part of what we do. We also want to help authors make their manuscripts better.

Cardiology is a field where getting things right matters enormously. The research we publish may influence clinical decisions, treatment protocols, and patient outcomes. That responsibility shapes how we approach every manuscript that comes through our doors.

We've designed our review process to be rigorous but constructive. When reviewers identify problems, we expect them to suggest solutions where possible. A good review doesn't just point out what's wrong — it helps authors understand how to fix it.

Double-Blind Review

We use a double-blind peer review process. This means authors don't know who is reviewing their work, and reviewers don't know whose work they're reviewing. We remove author names, institutional affiliations, and other identifying details before manuscripts go out for review.

Why do we do this? Because we want manuscripts judged on their merits alone. A paper from a well-known institution shouldn't get an easier ride than one from a smaller hospital. A junior researcher's work deserves the same fair hearing as a department head's. Blinding helps level the playing field.

Of course, blinding isn't perfect — sometimes reviewers can guess who wrote something based on the topic or methodology. But it reduces bias, and that's worth doing.

What Our Reviewers Evaluate

We give our reviewers clear guidance on what to assess. Here's what they're looking at:

Scientific Merit

Purpose and relevance: Does this research address a meaningful question? Will the findings matter to clinicians, researchers, or patients in the field of cardiology?

Originality: Does the work contribute something new? This doesn't mean every paper needs to be groundbreaking, but it should add to existing knowledge in some way.

Methodology

Study design: Is the approach appropriate for the research question? Are the methods described clearly enough that another researcher could replicate the study?

Materials and procedures: Are the drugs, devices, techniques, and patient populations appropriate? Are sample sizes adequate?

Statistical analysis: Are the analytical methods suitable for the data? Are results interpreted correctly?

Presentation

Structure: For original research, we expect the standard IMRAD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). Review articles and case reports may follow different structures appropriate to their content.

Data presentation: Are tables and figures clear and necessary? Do they support the conclusions drawn?

Discussion quality: Does the discussion honestly address limitations? Does it place the findings in context of existing literature?

Language and clarity: Is the writing clear and readable? Are references complete and properly formatted?

Ethical Considerations

Research ethics: For studies involving patients, was appropriate ethical approval obtained? Is informed consent documented? For case reports, has publication consent been secured?

Conflicts of interest: Are potential conflicts disclosed? This includes financial relationships, institutional affiliations, and personal connections that might influence the work.

Funding transparency: If the research was funded externally, is the source clearly stated?

Who Are Our Reviewers?

We select reviewers based on their expertise in the manuscript's subject area and their track record in research and publication. These are practicing cardiologists, cardiovascular surgeons, researchers, and academics who understand both the clinical realities and the methodological standards of the field.

Our reviewers are external to the editorial board. We believe this independence is important — it prevents any appearance that decisions are made by an insular group.

We typically assign two reviewers to each manuscript. If their assessments diverge significantly, we may seek a third opinion. The final decision rests with the editors, but reviewer input is central to that decision.
 

Reviewer Responsibilities

Confidentiality

This is non-negotiable. Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share them with anyone, discuss their contents, or use any information from them for their own work. The trust authors place in the review system depends on this.

Conflicts of Interest

We ask reviewers to flag any conflicts before they begin their assessment. This might include personal relationships with the authors, competitive interests, financial connections, or previous involvement with the research. If a reviewer feels they cannot provide an unbiased evaluation for any reason, they should decline the assignment.

Reviewers who identify a conflict after starting their review should notify us immediately. They're also welcome to suggest alternative reviewers who might be better suited to evaluate the work.

Timeliness

Authors deserve prompt feedback. We ask reviewers to complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe — typically two to three weeks. If delays are unavoidable, we appreciate early notice so we can make alternative arrangements.

More Than Gatekeeping

We mentioned earlier that our goal extends beyond simply accepting or rejecting manuscripts. We're particularly committed to supporting emerging researchers — those who may be new to publishing and still developing their skills.

Not every promising study arrives perfectly packaged. Sometimes good science is let down by weak writing or incomplete analysis. When we see potential, we try to work with authors to realize it. This takes more time and effort than simple rejection, but we think it's worthwhile.

That said, we have standards, and we maintain them. Supportive doesn't mean accepting work that isn't ready. It means giving authors a fair chance to improve.

Questions About Our Review Process?

If you have questions about how peer review works at International Journal of Cardiology Sciences — whether you're an author wondering what to expect or a potential reviewer interested in contributing — feel free to contact us at cardio.submit@gmail.com.