The Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Diseases (JCCD) follows a rigorous, double-blind peer review system to ensure the highest scientific and ethical standards. Our objective, transparent, and constructive review process guarantees that only high-quality, novel, and impactful research is published.

Peer Review Model

• Double-Blind Review: Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.
• Editorial Oversight: The editorial board ensures ethical compliance and fair evaluations.
• Expert Reviewers: Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the field of cardiovascular medicine.

Peer Review Workflow

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening (Pre-Review Assessment)

Before sending a manuscript for peer review, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment within 5 working days to check:
✅ Compliance with Author Guidelines
✅ Ethical approvals and conflict of interest disclosures
✅ Plagiarism screening
✅ Scientific scope, originality, and clarity

 Immediate Rejection Reasons:
❌ Out of scope for JCCD
❌ High similarity index (>15%) indicating potential plagiarism
❌ Lack of ethical approval (for clinical studies)
❌ Poor language or structure that affects readability

Manuscripts that pass this stage are assigned to an Associate Editor for peer review coordination.

Step 2: Reviewer Assignment & Invitation

• The Associate Editor selects at least two expert reviewers based on their expertise, previous review history, and conflict-of-interest screening.
• Invitations are sent with a 48-hour response deadline to accept or decline.
• Reviewers who accept are given 14 days to complete their evaluations.

Reviewer Selection Criteria:
✔ Subject matter expertise in cardiology and cardiovascular diseases
✔ Prior peer review experience in reputable journals
✔ No conflict of interest with the manuscript or authors

Step 3: Double-Blind Peer Review Process

• Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:
• Scientific rigor (study design, methodology, statistical analysis)
• Clinical significance (impact on cardiology practice or research)
• Novelty & originality (contribution to the field)
• Data integrity & reproducibility
• Ethical compliance

Reviewer’s Report Structure:

• Summary: Overview of strengths and weaknesses
• Major Concerns: Methodological flaws, missing data, ethical issues
• Minor Concerns: Language, figures, formatting issues
• Recommendation:
• Accept as is
• Minor revisions
• Major revisions
• Reject

Review Timeline: 14 days (with possible 7-day extension upon request)

Step 4: Editorial Decision

After receiving at least two peer reviews, the Associate Editor synthesizes feedback and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

Decision Categories:
✔ Accept with Minor Revisions – Revisions to be completed within 7 days
✔ Major Revisions Required – Authors have 21 days to resubmit
✔ Reject with Resubmission Option – Significant changes required before reconsideration
✔ Reject – Manuscript does not meet JCCD’s standards

Authors receive detailed feedback from reviewers to improve their manuscript.

Step 5: Author Revisions & Resubmission

• For minor revisions, authors must address concerns and submit a point-by-point response within 7 days.
• For major revisions, authors have 21 days to revise and submit an updated manuscript with:
• Highlighted changes in the revised manuscript
• Detailed responses to reviewers’ comments

The revised manuscript is sent back to the original reviewers (if necessary).

Step 6: Final Decision & Acceptance

Once revisions are satisfactory:
✅ Acceptance Notification is sent to authors.
✅ Manuscript undergoes final proofreading and formatting.
✅ A DOI is assigned, and the article is queued for publication.

Post-Acceptance Processing Timeline: 7–14 days

Step 7: Post-Publication Review & Corrections

JCCD supports post-publication discussions through Letters to the Editor and post-publication peer review (PPPR).

✅ Corrections Policy: Minor errors (errata) can be updated.
Retractions: In cases of misconduct, JCCD follows COPE guidelines for retraction.

Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

JCCD adheres to COPE, ICMJE, and WAME guidelines to maintain integrity.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers:
✔ Confidentiality: Manuscripts should not be shared or discussed outside the review process.
✔ Objectivity: Reviews must be fair, constructive, and free from bias.
✔ No Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have personal, academic, or financial conflicts.
✔ Timeliness: Reviewers should meet deadlines or inform the editor of delays.

Editorial Independence & Avoiding Bias:
JCCD ensures unbiased decision-making through:

• Diversity in the reviewer pool
• Automated conflict-of-interest screening
• Transparent editorial oversight

Reviewer Recognition & Incentives

At JCCD, we value and reward our reviewers for their contributions:

Reviewer Recognition Program
✅ Certificate of Acknowledgment for completed reviews
✅ Reviewer leader board (top reviewers recognized annually)
✅ Discount on article processing charges (APCs) for authors who actively review
✅ Editorial Board Invitations for outstanding reviewers

JCCD’s robust peer review process upholds the highest standards in cardiovascular research, ensuring: ✅ Scientific rigor ✅ Ethical compliance ✅ Timely decision-making