Reviewer Guidelines
Standards for providing constructive, expert evaluation of cardiovascular research manuscripts.
Excellence in Cardiovascular Peer Review
JHC reviewers uphold rigorous evaluation standards ensuring published research advances cardiology knowledge and practice.
Reviewers provide expert assessment of cardiovascular manuscripts, evaluating scientific validity, methodological quality, clinical relevance, and contribution to the field.
Scientific Assessment
Evaluate research design, methodology, and validity of conclusions for cardiovascular studies.
Constructive Feedback
Provide detailed, actionable comments that strengthen manuscript quality for cardiology authors.
Timely Review
Complete evaluations within agreed timeframes to support efficient publication workflows.
- Originality and contribution to cardiovascular medicine knowledge
- Appropriateness of research methodology and statistical analysis
- Clinical relevance and potential impact on cardiology practice
- Clarity of presentation and adherence to reporting guidelines
- Ethical compliance and transparent disclosure of limitations
Confidentiality: Manuscript content and review discussions are strictly confidential. Do not share or discuss submitted work outside the review process.
Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and decline assignments where relationships could bias evaluation. Reviews should be objective, respectful, and focused on scientific merit rather than personal criticism.
Effective reviews balance critique with constructive suggestions. Identify specific improvements needed while acknowledging manuscript strengths. Support recommendations with evidence and explanation.
