Foreword

At the Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology, our mission is to disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research that advances the understanding and treatment of cardiovascular diseases. The peer-review process is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the integrity, accuracy, and relevance of the articles we publish. Our reviewers play a critical role in this process, providing expert evaluations that help maintain the standards of our journal. We deeply value their contributions and have outlined the following comprehensive responsibilities to guide them in their essential role.

Reviewer’s Responsibilities

1. Confidentiality

The principle of confidentiality is fundamental to the integrity of the peer-review process. As a reviewer, you are entrusted with privileged information and ideas disclosed by authors. This trust obligates you to treat all manuscripts and supplementary materials as strictly confidential documents. You must not share, discuss, or disclose any aspect of the manuscript with colleagues, students, or anyone else without explicit authorization from the editor.

Confidentiality extends beyond the content of the manuscript to include the very fact that you are reviewing a particular paper. You should not reveal to others that you have been asked to review a manuscript or discuss the review process. This includes refraining from using any information obtained during the review for personal advantage or to disadvantage or discredit others.

If you wish to consult a colleague for a second opinion on a manuscript, you must first obtain permission from the editor. Any individual involved must also agree to the same level of confidentiality. Additionally, you should be aware of and comply with any specific confidentiality policies that the journal may have in place, ensuring that all practices align with data protection laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

1. Expertise and Competence

Accepting a review assignment signifies that you possess the necessary expertise to evaluate the manuscript critically. Your specialized knowledge and experience enable you to assess the validity, significance, and originality of the research. If you feel that the manuscript's subject matter is outside your area of expertise, you should decline the invitation promptly, allowing the editor to find a more suitable reviewer.

Recognizing your limitations is crucial for maintaining the quality of the review process. Do not hesitate to inform the editor if you believe that another expert would be better suited to review the manuscript. Providing suggestions for alternative reviewers can be helpful.

Additionally, consider your availability and ability to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe. If personal or professional commitments prevent you from dedicating sufficient time to conduct a thorough review, it is better to decline the assignment. Accepting a review without the capacity to perform it adequately can delay the publication process and compromise the quality of the evaluation.

1. Impartiality and Objectivity

As a reviewer, you are expected to provide an unbiased assessment of the manuscript based solely on its scholarly merit, without personal prejudice or favoritism. Your evaluation should focus on the content, including the validity of the research methodology, the accuracy of the data, the soundness of the conclusions, and the relevance to the field.

Avoid personal remarks or criticisms that could be perceived as hostile or derogatory. Constructive feedback should aim to help the authors improve their work, not to belittle or discourage them. Be mindful of your language, ensuring that it is professional and respectful at all times.

If you recognize the authors and feel that your relationship with them could influence your objectivity, disclose this to the editor. Transparency about potential biases allows the editor to make informed decisions about the suitability of your continued involvement in the review process.

1. Timeliness

The promptness of your review is essential to the efficiency of the publication process. Authors rely on timely feedback to advance their work, and delays can have significant implications for their research and careers. When accepting a review invitation, commit to completing it within the agreed-upon timeframe.

If unforeseen circumstances arise that may prevent you from meeting the deadline, inform the editor as soon as possible. Early communication allows the editor to adjust timelines or seek alternative reviewers if necessary. Do not rush a review to meet a deadline at the expense of thoroughness; instead, request an extension if needed and feasible.

Remember that timely reviews contribute to the overall credibility and reputation of the journal, reflecting our commitment to serving the scientific community efficiently.

1. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Conflicts of interest can arise from various sources, including personal relationships, financial interests, or professional affiliations that could bias your review. It is imperative to disclose any potential conflicts to the editor before proceeding with the review.

Examples of conflicts include, but are not limited to, being a co-author on previous papers with the authors, working at the same institution, or having a competitive or collaborative relationship. Financial interests might involve investments or funding sources that could be affected by the publication of the manuscript.

Upon disclosing a potential conflict, the editor will decide whether it is appropriate for you to review the manuscript. In cases where a significant conflict exists, you should recuse yourself to maintain the integrity of the review process.

1. Ethical Vigilance

Ethical considerations are paramount in scholarly publishing. As a reviewer, you are in a unique position to detect potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices involving human or animal subjects.

If you suspect that the manuscript contains plagiarized material, either from your work or others', or that the data appears fabricated or manipulated, you should report these concerns confidentially to the editor. Provide specific details and, if possible, evidence to support your suspicions.

Be cautious in making accusations; ensure that your concerns are based on evidence rather than speculation. The editor will investigate the matter according to the journal's policies and ethical guidelines provided by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Quality and Accuracy

Your critical evaluation of the manuscript should focus on assessing the quality and accuracy of the research. Examine the methodology to ensure that it is appropriate and rigorously applied. Verify that the data supports the conclusions drawn and that the statistical analyses are sound.

Consider whether the manuscript contributes new and significant knowledge to the field of cardiovascular medicine and cardiology. Assess the literature review to determine if all relevant work by other researchers is appropriately cited and discussed. Missing references or inadequate acknowledgment of prior work can diminish the manuscript's credibility.

Pay attention to the clarity and organization of the manuscript. While content is paramount, poor presentation can hinder the understanding of the research. Provide feedback on how the authors can improve the readability and coherence of their work.

1. Constructive Feedback

Your comments should aim to guide the authors in enhancing their manuscript. Begin by highlighting the strengths of the work, acknowledging innovative ideas, robust methodologies, or significant findings. Positive feedback encourages authors and recognizes their contributions.

When addressing areas for improvement, be specific and provide actionable suggestions. Instead of general statements like "the methodology is weak," explain which aspects are lacking and how they could be strengthened. Offer recommendations for additional experiments, analyses, or literature that could enhance the manuscript.

Maintain a supportive tone, avoiding language that could be interpreted as dismissive or insulting. Remember that the goal is to help authors improve their work, thereby advancing the field as a whole.

1. Compliance with Data Protection Laws

Adhering to data protection and privacy regulations is essential, particularly when handling sensitive information. As per the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other applicable laws, you must ensure that any personal data accessed during the review process is handled lawfully and ethically.

Do not collect, store, or share personal data from the manuscript beyond what is necessary for the review. Be cautious when dealing with patient data or confidential information. If the manuscript includes identifiable personal data, assess whether appropriate consent and ethical approvals have been obtained.

Familiarize yourself with the journal's policies on data protection and ensure that your actions comply with these guidelines. Breaches of data protection laws can have serious legal implications and undermine the trust between authors, reviewers, and the journal.

1. Professional Conduct

Upholding professionalism in all communications is essential. Interact with the editorial team and authors courteously and respectfully. Your conduct reflects not only on you but also on the journal and the broader scientific community.

Do not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript. All communications should be routed through the journal's editorial system to maintain the integrity and confidentiality of the review process. Direct contact can compromise anonymity and may lead to conflicts of interest.

If you have questions or require clarification, communicate with the editor. They can facilitate any necessary interactions while preserving the appropriate boundaries.

1. Adherence to Journal Policies

Familiarizing yourself with the journal's guidelines, standards, and policies ensures that your review aligns with our expectations and helps maintain consistency across publications. These policies may include specific formatting requirements, ethical standards, and expectations for research reporting.

By adhering to these guidelines, you assist the editorial team in enforcing standards and upholding the integrity of the publication process. If you notice that the manuscript does not comply with the journal's policies, include this in your feedback, providing specific references to the relevant guidelines.

Staying informed about current best practices in peer review and publication ethics, such as those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), enhances your ability to contribute effectively.

1. Anonymity

The peer-review process may be single-blind or double-blind. In a double-blind review, both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. Respecting this anonymity is crucial to prevent biases and maintain the integrity of the review.

Do not reveal your identity in your comments or attempt to discover the authors' identities if they are not provided. Avoid using language or references that could inadvertently disclose who you are.

Similarly, if you suspect you know who the authors are, do not let this influence your review. Continue to assess the manuscript objectively, focusing on the content rather than any preconceived notions about the authors.

1. Avoidance of Unlawful Practices

Ensure that your review does not include any content that could be considered defamatory, libelous, or infringing upon intellectual property rights. Your comments should be factual, evidence-based, and free from personal attacks.

Comply with all relevant laws and regulations, including the CAN-SPAM Act and other anti-spam laws. Do not use the review process to promote personal or commercial interests, send unsolicited communications, or engage in any form of harassment.

Be mindful of copyright laws when referencing or quoting from other works. Provide proper citations and avoid including extensive excerpts that may infringe on copyright.

1. Feedback to the Editor

Your insights can greatly assist the editor in making informed decisions about the manuscript. If you have concerns that are not appropriate to include in the comments to the authors, such as suspicions of ethical misconduct or conflicts of interest, communicate these directly to the editor.

Provide clear recommendations regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Options may include acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection. Support your recommendation with detailed reasoning, highlighting key points that influenced your decision.

If you believe the manuscript has potential but requires significant work, suggest specific ways the authors can address the issues. Your guidance can help the editor facilitate a constructive revision process.

By diligently fulfilling these responsibilities, reviewers uphold the standards of the Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine and Cardiology and contribute to the advancement of cardiovascular science. Your expertise, integrity, and dedication are invaluable assets to the academic community. We thank you for your commitment and look forward to your continued collaboration in promoting excellence in research.