Peer Review

Peer Review Model

Journal of Cardiology and Heart Failure (jchf) operates a single-anonymized peer-review model.

• Reviewers are provided with the identities and affiliations of the authors; reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.
• Reviewer reports are treated confidentially.
• Reviewers must provide objective, evidence-based and constructive assessments.
• Reviewers must not use confidential manuscript information for personal, academic, financial or professional advantage.

Independent External Review

All scholarly manuscripts submitted to the journal, including Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, Mini Reviews, Case Reports, Case Studies, Short Communications, Perspectives and other scholarly article types, undergo external peer review before publication.

Each scholarly manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Manuscripts may be declined at initial editorial screening; no scholarly article is published without external peer review.

Original Research Articles may be evaluated by three or more independent reviewers when additional methodological, statistical, clinical, interdisciplinary or specialist assessment is considered appropriate.

Reviewer selection is based on subject expertise, relevant scholarly experience and independence from the authors and manuscript.

Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must be independent of the authors and the submitted work. They must disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. Potential conflicts include:

• Recent or ongoing collaboration with an author.
• Employment at the same institution or a closely connected institution.
• Supervisory or student relationships.
• Close personal relationships or direct academic competition.
• Financial interests relating to the research.
• Involvement in the work being evaluated.
• Any other circumstance that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Where a relevant conflict exists, the reviewer must decline the assignment or inform the Handling Editor so that an independent reviewer can be selected. Editors must also disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when appropriate.

The Editorial Workflow

The editorial process follows seven stages:

Stage 1: Submission and Editorial Screening

Submitted manuscripts are screened for:

• Alignment with the journal's aims and scope.
• Required components, including abstract, keywords, funding and competing-interest declarations.
• Applicable ethical documentation, including IRB/IACUC approvals, informed consent and clinical trial registration.
• Basic formatting and word-count requirements.
• Potential duplicate submission, data-integrity issues or other ethical concerns.

Submitted manuscripts may undergo similarity or integrity screening. Automated screening results are evaluated by qualified editorial staff and are not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism, misconduct, acceptance or rejection.

Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to a Handling Editor. Others may be returned for corrections or declined with an explanation.

Stage 2: Assignment to a Handling Editor

A Handling Editor with relevant subject expertise manages reviewer selection, review timelines and communication, evaluates reviewer reports, considers differing opinions and makes an editorial recommendation. Conflicts of interest are checked before assignment.

Stage 3: Reviewer Selection

The Handling Editor selects at least two independent external reviewers for every scholarly manuscript proceeding to review, applying the independence requirements above. Selection considers relevant publications, methodological expertise and the ability to provide timely, constructive reports. Geographic, gender and career-stage diversity is considered. Additional specialist reviewers, including three or more for Original Research Articles, may be invited where appropriate.

Stage 4: Single-Anonymized Peer Review

Reviewers assess study design, methodology, statistical or analytical methods, reporting completeness (including applicable guidelines such as CONSORT or PRISMA), and whether conclusions are supported by the evidence. Reviewers provide:

• Confidential comments for the editor: Ethical concerns, questions of originality and other sensitive assessments.
• Comments for the authors: Respectful, specific assessments of strengths and weaknesses, with actionable suggestions. Reviewers assess originality, methodology and clarity, and distinguish essential revisions from discretionary suggestions.

Stage 5: Editorial Decision-Making

The Handling Editor manages the peer-review process, evaluates reviewer reports and makes an editorial recommendation. Possible recommendations include:

• Accept: Suitable for publication.
• Minor Revision: Limited amendments are required.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes, such as further analysis or additional evidence, are required.
• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or by a formally delegated independent editor authorized by the journal.

Decisions are based on reviewer assessments, methodological and scientific quality, originality and scholarly contribution, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, and the adequacy of author revisions and responses.

Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial considerations, APC payments, waivers, memberships, sponsorship arrangements or other financial matters.

If an Editor-in-Chief, Handling Editor, Editorial Board Member or Guest Editor has a conflict of interest relating to a manuscript, that editor must not participate in reviewer selection, peer-review assessment or the final decision. The manuscript must instead be assigned to an independent editor.

Decisions are communicated to authors with a rationale, anonymized reviewer feedback and any required actions.

Stage 6: Revised Manuscripts

Authors must provide a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments, a revised manuscript with changes highlighted, a clean version, and any additional data, code or supplementary materials requested during review.

For Major Revisions, revised manuscripts will normally be returned to one or more original reviewers where further specialist evaluation is required. For Minor Revisions, the Handling Editor may verify whether requested amendments have been adequately addressed without sending the manuscript back to reviewers, where appropriate.

The final acceptance decision remains with the Editor-in-Chief or authorized independent editor.

Stage 7: Final Acceptance and Publication

Following final acceptance, the manuscript enters production, which may include copyediting, formatting, typesetting, metadata preparation and author proof review. After production is completed, the Version of Record is published on the journal website.

Where applicable, the article DOI and bibliographic metadata are registered with Crossref and made available to relevant scholarly discovery services. Inclusion in third-party abstracting and indexing databases is determined independently by each indexing service and is not guaranteed by the journal or Confmeets Publishing.

Post-publication corrections are handled under the journal's applicable correction policy.

Peer Review of Special Issue Articles

Special Issue articles receive the same editorial and peer-review standards as regular articles. Every scholarly Special Issue manuscript must be reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for scholarly integrity and editorial oversight.

Guest Editors may assist with subject-specific editorial management and reviewer recommendations, subject to the journal's conflict-of-interest and editorial-independence policies.

A manuscript authored or co-authored by a Guest Editor must be handled entirely by an independent member of the journal's standing editorial team. The Guest Editor must not participate in reviewer selection, editorial assessment or the final publication decision for their own manuscript, or access confidential reviewer identities or reports beyond normal author access.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not:

• Share manuscripts or unpublished findings without authorization.
• Use unpublished information for personal advantage.
• Contact manuscript authors directly regarding the review outside the journal's authorized editorial communication process.
• Disclose confidential peer-review information.
• Delegate a review to another person without permission from the Handling Editor.

Any approved co-reviewer must be disclosed to the journal so their contribution can be appropriately documented.

Guidelines for Confmeets Reviewers

Core Responsibilities

• Objective & Evidence-Anchored Critique: Base all assessments on empirical evidence and established scholarly conventions, free from personal bias.
• Strict Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a privileged document; neither disseminates nor appropriates its content.
• Proactive Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Immediately declare any potential conflicts (professional, collaborative, or financial) and recuse oneself if necessary.
• Punctuality & Professionalism: Honor agreed-upon deadlines or provide ample notice if an extension is required.
• Constructive & Respectful Communication: Frame all criticism diplomatically, focusing on the scholarly work, not the authors.
• Vigilance for Ethical Integrity: Alert the editor to any suspected ethical breaches (plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate submission) with specific, evidence-based concerns.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should appraise manuscripts based on the following criteria, providing specific, referenced comments for each:

• Novelty & Scholarly Significance: Does the work present a genuine advance be it empirical, theoretical, or methodological? Is its contribution clearly framed and justified against the current literature?
• Methodological Transparency & Reproducibility: Is the design, protocol, and analysis described with sufficient granularity to allow for replication? For quantitative studies, are statistical methods sound and assumptions verified? For qualitative work, is the analytical framework transparent and justified?
• Result Validity & Evidentiary Strength: Are all findings, including negative or null results, reported transparently? Do the conclusions logically follow from the evidence, and are alternative explanations thoughtfully considered?
• Analytical Depth & Interpretative Prudence: Are the interpretations constrained by the data, avoiding undue speculation or overstatement? Is the discussion focused and insightful?
• Ethical Soundness & Compliance: Are required ethics approvals and consent procedures explicitly documented? Are there concerns regarding participant welfare or data privacy?
• Narrative Clarity & Structural Coherence: Is the manuscript's argument logically structured and compelling? Are tables and figures both necessary and effectively explained? Is the referencing accurate and contemporary?
• Commitment to Open Science: Is there a data availability statement? Is the underlying data, code, or materials accessible in a recognized repository to facilitate verification and reuse?

Review Report Structure

• Synopsis: A brief (2-4 sentences) neutral summary of the paper's objectives, methods, and key findings.
• Overall Recommendation: A clear verdict (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject) with a succinct justification.
• Major Concerns: A numbered list of fundamental issues that must be rectified for the manuscript to be considered for publication.
• Minor Concerns & Suggestions: A separate list of recommendations to improve clarity, style, and presentation.
• Specific Line-by-Line Annotations (Optional): Precise comments linked to page and line numbers for granular edits.
• Confidential Editor Remarks: Any sensitive feedback, such as ethical concerns or questions of originality, reserved for the editor's eyes only.

Reviewer Recruitment

Editorial Recruitment

Reviewer service may be considered as one element when the journal evaluates potential future Editorial Board candidates. Editorial appointments are made independently and are based on academic qualifications, subject expertise, research and publication record, research integrity, editorial experience and the journal's current editorial requirements.

Serving as a reviewer does not guarantee appointment to the Editorial Board. Reviewer recruitment and Editorial Board appointments must not be linked to APC payment, memberships or financial benefits.

Reviewer Eligibility

Reviewer eligibility is assessed using:

• A Ph.D. or equivalent terminal research degree and demonstrated expertise
• A track record of recent publications in reputable, peer-reviewed journals
• Familiarity with methodological and reporting standards in their field
• A commitment to ethical, timely, and constructive peer review

We actively encourage applications from advanced doctoral candidates and postdoctoral researchers, who may be invited to co-review under mentorship with prior Handling Editor permission and disclosure to the journal.

Application Process

Prospective reviewers can express interest by submitting: Reviewer Form Signup Link

• An updated CV highlighting relevant publications and methodological competencies.
• A digital academic profile (ORCID, Scopus, or Google Scholar).
• A detailed list of specific research interests and keywords for accurate manuscript matching.
• (Optional) A summary of previous reviewing experience.

Recognizing Our Reviewers

Acknowledging Scholarly Service

Confmeets Publishing recognizes reviewer contributions through:

• Annual Reviewer Excellence Certificates: Digitally certified documents detailing yearly contributions.
• Opt-In Public Acknowledgment: Reviewers can choose to be listed in an annual "Recognized Reviewers" roll of honor on the journal website.
• Reviewer Awards: Periodic accolades awarded to top reviewers based on metrics of timeliness, depth, and constructiveness.

All recognition strictly adheres to confidentiality norms; public acknowledgment requires prior consent and must not reveal reviewer identities for individual manuscripts.