Reviewer Guidelines | Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology

Prelude

Welcome to the Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology (JCMC), an academic platform dedicated to publishing innovative and high-quality research in the ever-evolving field of cardiovascular science. As a reviewer, your role is pivotal in maintaining the journal’s academic integrity and in supporting its mission to contribute to global advancements in cardiovascular research. The peer-review process is central to upholding the credibility of the journal and ensuring that the published research meets the highest standards of originality, scientific rigor, and relevance.

These guidelines are designed to assist you in conducting thorough, unbiased, and constructive peer reviews, which are essential not only for maintaining the quality of the journal but also for enhancing its global recognition. JCMC strives for compliance with the rules and regulations of top indexing databases, which emphasize transparency, ethical publishing practices, and rigorous peer review.

Your contribution to the review process plays a vital role in the journal’s ability to meet these standards and ensure its inclusion in these prestigious databases. We aim to create a transparent and structured review process that aligns with international best practices, thus contributing to the advancement of the cardiovascular science field and the overall quality of research dissemination.

Reviewer Responsibilities

As a reviewer for JCMC, you are entrusted with several key responsibilities that are critical to the journal’s success and its adherence to international peer review standards. These responsibilities encompass confidentiality, managing conflicts of interest, providing timely and constructive feedback, and ensuring that each manuscript adheres to the highest ethical standards.

Confidentiality: All manuscripts and associated data provided for review must be treated as confidential documents. You are expected to handle the review process with discretion and professionalism. Manuscripts should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless explicitly authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. This confidentiality applies indefinitely, even after the review process is completed. The protection of confidential information helps preserve the integrity of the peer review system and the trust of the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review. Conflicts of interest may arise from financial interests, personal relationships, academic collaborations, or any other circumstances that could influence the reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript. If you believe that your ability to provide an impartial review is compromised, it is essential to notify the Editor immediately so that the manuscript can be reassigned to another reviewer. Transparency in disclosing conflicts of interest is critical to maintaining the fairness of the peer-review process.
Timely Review: JCMC strives to provide timely reviews to ensure that high-quality research is published promptly. As a reviewer, you are expected to complete your review within the allocated time frame, typically 2–4 weeks. If you are unable to meet this deadline due to other commitments or unforeseen circumstances, it is crucial to inform the Editor as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made. Delays in the review process can affect the publication timeline and cause frustration for both the authors and the journal.
Constructive Feedback: Providing constructive, professional, and courteous feedback is a core responsibility of the reviewer. Your comments should be aimed at improving the manuscript’s clarity, scientific accuracy, and overall contribution to the field. Criticism should be objective and focused on the manuscript itself, avoiding personal attacks or inappropriate language. If you have concerns regarding ethical violations, plagiarism, or misconduct, these must be reported to the Editor-in-Chief Constructive feedback helps authors refine their work and ensures that only high-quality research is published.

The quality of your review not only impacts the manuscript in question but also contributes to the overall reputation of the journal. As JCMC works toward compliance with top indexing databases, your role in safeguarding the quality and integrity of the research we publish cannot be overstated.

Criteria for Evaluation

As a reviewer for JCMC, you are responsible for evaluating manuscripts based on specific criteria that ensure the published research is of the highest quality. The following criteria should guide your evaluation process:

Originality: One of the primary functions of peer review is to assess whether the research is novel and provides significant contributions to the field of cardiovascular medicine. As a reviewer, you should ask whether the manuscript offers new insights or advances current knowledge. The originality of the research is a key factor in determining its value to the academic community and its suitability for publication.
Scientific Rigor: High-quality research is built on sound methodology and robust analysis. Reviewers must assess whether the methods used in the study are appropriate for the research question and whether the data analysis is conducted rigorously. You should evaluate whether the results are presented clearly and whether the conclusions drawn are supported by the data. Manuscripts that lack scientific rigor or that contain significant methodological flaws may require substantial revisions or rejection.
Clarity: A well-written manuscript is one that is easy to understand and logically organized. Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is clearly written, with well-defined objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. Ambiguities, inconsistencies, or poorly structured sections should be flagged for revision. Clear communication is essential for ensuring that the research findings are accessible to the broader scientific community.
Relevance: The manuscript must align with the scope of JCMC and provide significant insights into cardiovascular science. You should consider whether the research addresses an important question in the field and whether it is relevant to the journal’s audience. Manuscripts that fall outside the scope of the journal or that do not contribute meaningfully to the field may be better suited for submission to other journals.
Ethical Standards: Adherence to ethical guidelines is a fundamental requirement for publication. Reviewers should verify that the manuscript complies with ethical standards, including obtaining approval from institutional review boards (IRBs) for studies involving human subjects and ensuring the appropriate treatment of animal subjects in accordance with ethical guidelines. Any ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication, must be reported immediately.

By thoroughly evaluating manuscripts against these criteria, you help maintain the journal’s high standards and contribute to its reputation as a trusted source of cardiovascular research.

Recommendation

After completing your review, it is essential to make a clear and justified recommendation to the Editor regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication. Your recommendation should be based on your evaluation of the manuscript’s originality, scientific rigor, clarity, relevance, and adherence to ethical standards. The following categories should guide your recommendation:

Accept: The manuscript is of high quality and requires no significant changes. It is ready for publication in its current form and meets the journal’s standards of scientific rigor and ethical compliance.
Minor Revisions: The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires some minor revisions. These could include clarifying certain sections, making small improvements to the methodology, or correcting minor errors. Manuscripts in this category can be accepted after the revisions are made and reviewed.
Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential but requires significant revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. Major revisions may involve reworking sections of the methodology, providing additional data analysis, or addressing substantial issues with clarity or organization. After these revisions are made, the manuscript will undergo another round of review before a final decision is made.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for quality or relevance, or it may fall outside the scope of the journal. Manuscripts that are rejected typically contain serious flaws in their methodology, fail to contribute to the field, or do not adhere to ethical standards.

It is important to provide detailed reasoning for your recommendation to help the authors and the Editor understand the basis for your decision. Constructive feedback is especially valuable for authors whose manuscripts require major revisions or are rejected, as it helps them improve their work for future submissions.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the ethical integrity of the journal. As a reviewer, you must remain vigilant for any ethical issues that may arise during the review process, including:

Plagiarism: Reviewers should use plagiarism detection tools and their own knowledge to identify any instances of plagiarism or duplicate publication. If significant overlap with previously published work is detected, the manuscript should be flagged, and the Editor-in-Chief must be notified.
Data Fabrication or Manipulation: If you suspect that the data presented in the manuscript has been fabricated or manipulated, you should immediately report your concerns to the Editor-in-Chief. It is important to ensure that the research presented is accurate and based on genuine data.
Unethical Research Practices: Reviewers must ensure that all research involving human or animal subjects complies with ethical standards. This includes verifying that appropriate ethical approvals have been obtained and that the study was conducted in a manner that protects the rights and welfare of the subjects.

By upholding these ethical responsibilities, reviewers contribute to the credibility of the journal and ensure that only high-quality, ethically sound research is published. Adherence to ethical guidelines is also critical for the journal’s inclusion in top indexing databases, which prioritize transparency and ethical publishing practices.

Adherence to International Review Standards

JCMC’s review process is designed to comply with internationally recognized ethical guidelines, including those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). As a reviewer, you are expected to follow these guidelines to ensure that the review process is transparent, fair, and unbiased.

Transparency: The review process should be transparent, with clear communication between reviewers, authors, and the editorial team. This transparency helps build trust in the journal and ensures that all parties understand the expectations and requirements of the review process.
Fairness: All manuscripts should be reviewed fairly, based on their scientific merit and relevance to the field. Personal biases or conflicts of interest must not influence your review.
Unbiased Review: The double-blind review process used by JCMC helps prevent bias by ensuring that reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Reviewers should ensure that their evaluations are based solely on the quality of the research and its contribution to the field.

By adhering to these international review standards, you help ensure that JCMC remains a reputable and trusted journal in the field of cardiovascular science.

Post-Review Procedures

After you have submitted your review, the Editor-in-Chief may contact you for further clarification or additional comments. It is important to be available for follow-up communication to ensure that the review process is concluded smoothly. The Editor may also seek your input on whether the authors have adequately addressed your comments during the revision process.

Your continued involvement after the initial review is critical to ensuring that the final published manuscript meets the journal’s high standards. You may be asked to review revised versions of the manuscript to confirm that all necessary changes have been made.

By participating in the post-review procedures, you help maintain the quality and integrity of the journal, contributing to its reputation and its ability to meet the rigorous criteria of top indexing databases.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

At JCMC, we value the contributions of our reviewers and recognize their efforts in upholding the quality of the journal. Reviewers have the option to receive formal recognition for their work through services, where they can showcase their reviewing activities. This recognition helps highlight the important role that reviewers play in maintaining the integrity of the scientific literature.

Your contributions as a reviewer are integral to the journal’s success in achieving indexing recognition and advancing the field of cardiovascular medicine. We are grateful for your time, effort, and expertise in the peer-review process, and we aim to acknowledge your work through both formal recognition and ongoing support.

By adhering to these guidelines, you help JCMC achieve its goal of becoming a leading publication in cardiovascular research, recognized for its quality and integrity by major indexing databases.

Diversity and Inclusivity in Peer Review

Maintaining diversity and inclusivity in the peer-review process is essential to ensuring that research is evaluated from multiple perspectives and that the journal adheres to global standards of fairness. As a reviewer for JCMC, you play a role in promoting a diverse and inclusive review process that considers the viewpoints and contributions of researchers from various backgrounds.

Diverse Reviewer Pool: It is important to ensure that the pool of reviewers represents a wide range of expertise, geographical locations, genders, and academic backgrounds. As a reviewer, you are encouraged to participate actively in peer review, contributing your unique perspective and expertise. This diversity strengthens the review process and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and from multiple viewpoints.
Inclusivity in Feedback: Reviewers should be mindful of providing feedback that is inclusive and respectful of different research approaches, methodologies, and viewpoints. Criticism should be aimed at improving the manuscript rather than dismissing alternative approaches. Inclusivity in feedback helps foster a collaborative academic environment where diverse ideas are valued.
Reducing Bias in Peer Review: JCMC’s commitment to double-blind peer review helps reduce potential biases in the review process. However, reviewers should remain conscious of any unconscious biases they may hold when evaluating manuscripts. By focusing on the scientific merit of the research and adhering to objective evaluation criteria, reviewers can help ensure that the review process is fair and unbiased.

Diversity and inclusivity are key factors for ensuring that the journal’s peer-review process aligns with the best practices outlined by major indexing databases. These principles contribute to a broader representation of scientific thought and ensure that the research published by JCMC is reflective of the global scientific community.

Transparency in Review Process

Transparency is a cornerstone of the peer-review process and is essential for maintaining the trust of authors, reviewers, and the scientific community. Transparency in the review process is also a requirement for achieving compliance with major indexing databases, which prioritize openness in editorial decision-making and peer review.

Reviewer Anonymity: JCMC uses a double-blind peer review process to ensure that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This helps to prevent bias and ensures that manuscripts are evaluated based solely on their scientific content.
Clear Reviewer Guidelines: To maintain transparency, JCMC provides reviewers with clear guidelines for evaluating manuscripts. This ensures that all reviewers follow consistent standards when assessing submissions, contributing to the fairness and reliability of the peer-review process. As a reviewer, it is important to adhere to these guidelines and to communicate your evaluations clearly and constructively.
Decision Transparency: Editors are responsible for ensuring that the final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript is communicated clearly to both the authors and the reviewers. Transparency in decision-making helps to foster trust between all parties involved in the review process.

By maintaining transparency throughout the peer-review process, JCMC complies with the ethical standards required by top indexing databases. Transparent practices build trust in the journal and contribute to its reputation as a fair and reliable publication platform.

Reproducibility and Data Integrity

Reproducibility is a critical component of scientific research and is increasingly emphasized by major indexing databases. Reproducible research allows other scientists to validate findings, contributing to the overall advancement of the field. As a reviewer, you play a key role in ensuring that the research published by JCMC adheres to high standards of reproducibility and data integrity.

Assessing Reproducibility: When reviewing a manuscript, assess whether the research methods and data analysis are described in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to replicate the study. If critical details are missing or if the methodology is unclear, suggest revisions to improve the manuscript’s reproducibility.
Data Integrity: Reviewers should evaluate whether the data presented in the manuscript appears to be accurate, complete, and consistent with the research question. Any discrepancies, missing data, or signs of data manipulation should be flagged for further investigation by the Editor-in-Chief.
Data Availability Statements: As part of JCMC’s commitment to open science, reviewers should ensure that manuscripts include a Data Availability Statement, which specifies where and how the underlying data can be accessed. This enhances the transparency of the research and allows other researchers to validate the findings.

By promoting reproducibility and data integrity in the manuscripts you review, you contribute to the quality and trustworthiness of the research published by JCMC. This is essential for compliance with the standards required by major indexing databases, which prioritize transparency and accuracy in scientific publishing.

Ethical and Legal Compliance

Ensuring that all manuscripts comply with ethical and legal standards is a fundamental responsibility of the reviewer. Ethical compliance is critical for the journal’s integrity and for meeting the criteria required by major indexing databases.

Ethical Approvals: Reviewers should verify that manuscripts involving human or animal subjects have received approval from relevant Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or ethics committees. Manuscripts should clearly state the ethical guidelines followed, and any concerns regarding ethical violations should be immediately reported to the Editor-in-Chief.
Informed Consent: For research involving human participants, reviewers must ensure that the authors have obtained informed consent from the subjects. The manuscript should include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained and that participant privacy has been protected.
Adherence to Legal Requirements: In addition to ethical compliance, manuscripts must adhere to all relevant legal requirements, including those related to data privacy, intellectual property, and research involving vulnerable populations. Reviewers should flag any potential legal issues and ensure that manuscripts comply with the appropriate regulations.

By upholding ethical and legal standards in the review process, reviewers contribute to the journal’s compliance with international best practices and ensure that JCMC remains eligible for inclusion in prestigious indexing databases.

Reviewer Recognition and Incentives

JCMC values the contributions of its reviewers and is committed to recognizing their efforts in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal. Recognizing reviewers not only acknowledges their hard work but also incentivizes continued participation in the peer-review process.

Certificates of Appreciation: JCMC offers certificates of appreciation to reviewers who complete high-quality reviews. These certificates serve as a formal acknowledgment of the reviewer’s contribution to the journal and can be included in professional portfolios.
Reviewer Awards: To further incentivize excellence in peer review, JCMC may offer annual reviewer awards to recognize individuals who have made significant contributions to the journal through their reviews. These awards help highlight the important role that reviewers play in maintaining the journal’s high standards.

By providing recognition and incentives for reviewers, JCMC fosters a community of engaged and motivated reviewers who are committed to upholding the journal’s quality. Recognizing the efforts of reviewers also aligns with the expectations of major indexing databases, which value transparency and ethical practices in peer review.

Review Recognition Certificates on Demand

JCMC highly values the work and time commitment of its reviewers and acknowledges the pivotal role they play in maintaining the quality and credibility of the journal. To formalize this appreciation, JCMC provides Review Recognition Certificates to reviewers upon request. These certificates serve as formal proof of a reviewer’s contributions to the peer review process, which can be useful for academic, professional, and career development purposes.

Importance of the Review Recognition Certificate

Professional Recognition: The Review Recognition Certificate can be used to demonstrate your involvement in the academic community. Whether for promotion, grant applications, or institutional recognition, these certificates highlight your contributions as a peer reviewer, underscoring your commitment to upholding the integrity of scientific research.
Academic and Career Advancement: Reviewers can include the Review Recognition Certificate in their professional portfolios or CVs, which can be advantageous when applying for academic positions, fellowships, or other career opportunities. Demonstrating your role in the peer-review process shows that you are actively engaged in ensuring the quality of research in your field.
Contributions to Scientific Integrity: By serving as a peer reviewer, you contribute to the advancement of cardiovascular research and help maintain the integrity of the published literature. The certificate is not only a recognition of your efforts but also a testament to your commitment to the ethical standards that govern scientific publishing.
Public Recognition: Reviewers who wish to showcase their contributions can opt to have their certificates made public through platforms such as Publons. This public recognition allows you to demonstrate your expertise in cardiovascular research and engage with a broader academic audience.

JCMC ensures that certificates are personalized and can be requested at any time following the completion of a review. This practice aligns with the journal’s commitment to transparency and ethical publishing, which is in line with the expectations of major indexing databases.

Reviewer Accountability and Integrity

In addition to recognizing the contributions of reviewers, JCMC emphasizes the importance of accountability and integrity throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are not only responsible for providing constructive feedback but must also act as gatekeepers of ethical standards and scientific rigor.

Maintaining High Standards: As a reviewer, it is your responsibility to ensure that all manuscripts meet the journal’s high standards for scientific rigor, accuracy, and clarity. This includes evaluating whether the research is methodologically sound, the conclusions are supported by data, and the manuscript is written in a clear and accessible manner.
Addressing Ethical Concerns: Reviewers are expected to be vigilant for any ethical concerns, such as conflicts of interest, potential misconduct, or issues related to data integrity. Reporting such concerns promptly is essential to maintaining the trustworthiness of the journal.
Reviewer Integrity: Reviewers must ensure that their evaluations are objective, free from personal bias, and based solely on the merits of the research. This commitment to integrity not only strengthens the peer review process but also contributes to the reputation of the journal as a trusted source of cardiovascular research.

By adhering to these principles, reviewers help JCMC maintain its compliance with the ethical standards required by major indexing databases, further enhancing the journal’s credibility and impact.

Role of Technology in Peer Review

JCMC utilizes advanced technologies to streamline the peer-review process and ensure that it remains efficient, transparent, and secure. As a reviewer, it is important to understand how these technologies contribute to the overall quality and reliability of the peer-review process.

Plagiarism Detection Tools: All manuscripts submitted to JCMC are screened using plagiarism detection software. Reviewers are provided with plagiarism reports to assist in evaluating whether the manuscript contains any instances of duplicate content. This technology enhances the integrity of the peer-review process and helps reviewers identify potential ethical violations.
Online Review Platforms: JCMC uses secure online platforms to manage the submission, review, and editorial decision-making processes. These platforms provide reviewers with easy access to manuscripts, supporting materials, and review guidelines. The platform also enables confidential communication between reviewers and editors, ensuring that the peer review process remains transparent and secure.
Data Availability and Reproducibility: Advanced data-sharing technologies allow authors to provide reviewers with access to large datasets or supplementary materials through secure online repositories. Reviewers can use these technologies to verify the reproducibility of the research and assess the validity of the conclusions drawn from the data.

By leveraging technology, JCMC ensures that the peer-review process is aligned with the best practices advocated by major indexing databases, which prioritize transparency, accuracy, and ethical publishing practices.

Feedback and Quality Control

To maintain the integrity and quality of the peer review process, JCMC actively seeks feedback from both reviewers and authors regarding the review process. Continuous improvement is key to ensuring that the peer review system is fair, efficient, and aligned with the journal’s goals of publishing high-quality research.

Reviewer Feedback: After each completed review, reviewers are invited to provide feedback on the review process, the clarity of the guidelines, and any challenges they encountered. This feedback is used to improve the review system, ensuring that it remains responsive to the needs of reviewers.
Author Feedback on Reviews: Authors are encouraged to provide feedback on the quality and helpfulness of the reviews they receive. Constructive criticism from authors helps the editorial team identify areas for improvement and ensures that the feedback provided by reviewers is of the highest quality.
Quality Control Mechanisms: The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board conduct periodic audits of the peer review process to ensure that it meets the journal’s standards of transparency, fairness, and efficiency. This includes evaluating the timeliness of reviews, the appropriateness of reviewer recommendations, and the overall quality of feedback provided to authors.

By incorporating mechanisms for feedback and quality control, JCMC ensures that the peer review process is continually refined and optimized, contributing to the journal’s eligibility for inclusion in prestigious indexing databases.

Reviewer Conflict Resolution

Conflicts may occasionally arise during the peer review process, whether between reviewers and authors or among reviewers themselves. JCMC is committed to resolving conflicts in a transparent, fair, and timely manner to ensure that the integrity of the peer review process is maintained.

Conflict Between Reviewers and Authors: In cases where authors disagree with the feedback or recommendations provided by reviewers, JCMC has established a conflict resolution process. Authors can appeal decisions by providing a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments, which will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and potentially a third-party reviewer for an unbiased assessment.
Reviewer Disagreements: If reviewers provide conflicting evaluations of a manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief will review the reports and may solicit input from an additional reviewer. The final decision will be based on a balanced consideration of all reviewer feedback and the manuscript’s scientific merit.
Ethical Disputes: If ethical concerns or disputes arise during the review process, the Editor-in-Chief will lead an investigation, consulting with the editorial board and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) if necessary. Ensuring that ethical issues are resolved transparently and fairly is crucial for maintaining the journal’s credibility.

By establishing clear conflict resolution protocols, JCMC ensures that the peer review process remains fair and respectful, aligning with the ethical guidelines required by major indexing databases.

Policy on AI/LLM-Generated Reviewer Comments

JCMC is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and human oversight in the peer-review process. In line with these values, JCMC does not accept reviewer comments or evaluations that are generated by AI (Artificial Intelligence) tools or Large Language Models (LLMs). The peer-review process at JCMC requires thoughtful, critical analysis from experienced human reviewers, whose expertise and judgment are vital for evaluating the scientific merit, ethical standards, and methodological rigor of submitted manuscripts.

Why AI/LLM-Generated Comments Are Not Accepted

Lack of Human Judgment: While AI/LLM tools can generate text based on patterns in data, they do not possess the deep domain expertise or critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate complex scientific research. Peer review requires nuanced analysis that takes into account the context of the study, the quality of the methodology, and the relevance of the findings. AI-generated comments are not equipped to provide this level of insight.
Ethical and Scientific Rigor: Human reviewers are responsible for identifying ethical issues, potential conflicts of interest, and instances of plagiarism or data manipulation. AI tools are not capable of evaluating ethical considerations or making judgments about the integrity of the research process. Accepting AI-generated comments would undermine the ethical standards that JCMC upholds.
Tailored Feedback: One of the core responsibilities of a reviewer is to provide constructive, personalized feedback that can help authors improve their work. AI-generated responses tend to be generic and may not address the specific nuances of the manuscript. Reviewers must engage directly with the content to offer meaningful feedback that is both relevant and actionable for the authors.

The Role of Human Expertise in Peer Review

The peer-review process is central to the advancement of scientific knowledge, and it depends on the expertise and judgment of experienced researchers and professionals. Reviewers are expected to provide comprehensive evaluations that reflect their deep understanding of the subject matter. By relying on human expertise, JCMC ensures that the peer-review process remains rigorous, reliable, and aligned with the journal's high standards for scientific integrity.

Expert Evaluation: Human reviewers are experts in their respective fields and are capable of providing in-depth critiques of the research design, analysis, and conclusions. Their feedback is based on years of experience, ongoing engagement with the literature, and familiarity with the latest developments in cardiovascular research.
Ethical Oversight: Human reviewers are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts adhere to ethical guidelines, including those related to research involving human or animal subjects. This ethical oversight is crucial for maintaining the trustworthiness of the scientific record, and it cannot be outsourced to AI tools.
Contextual Understanding: Human reviewers are capable of understanding the broader context in which the research is conducted, including how the findings fit into existing literature and their potential impact on the field. This contextual understanding is essential for assessing the significance of the research and determining whether it meets the standards for publication in JCMC.

Enforcement of This Policy

To maintain the integrity of the peer-review process, JCMC strictly prohibits the use of AI/LLM-generated content in reviewer comments. All reviewers are required to submit their own original assessments, based on their expertise and direct engagement with the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board will monitor submissions for compliance with this policy. Any reviewer found to be submitting AI-generated comments will be disqualified from future participation in the peer-review process.

By enforcing this policy, JCMC ensures that the peer-review process remains a rigorous, human-driven evaluation that upholds the journal's commitment to ethical and scientific excellence.