A summary of the Editorial Process is given in the flowchart below.
Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine Editorial Process
The following provides notes on each step.
The author will receive a tracking number (Ms. No.) following a submission.
All submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the journal’s Editorial Office for compliance with guidelines for preparation of articles, the journal’s scope, standard guidelines, quality, novelty, and adherence to ethical issues. Articles that do not comply with the guidelines will be sent back to the authors.
The academic editor, i.e., the Editor-in-Chief in the case of regular submissions, or the Guest Editor in the case of Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board member in case of a conflict of interest and of regular submissions if the Editor-in-Chief allows, will be notified of the submission and invited to perform a check and recommend reviewers. Academic editors can decide to continue with the peer-review process, reject a manuscript, or request revisions before peer-review.
RCM require that editorial staff or editors not be involved in processing their own academic work. The Editor or members of the Editorial Board may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the journal. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative members of the Board. Submissions will be assigned to at least two independent outside reviewers. The submitting Editor/Board member will have no involvement in the decision-making process. Decisions will be made by other Editorial Board Members who do not have a conflict of interest with the author.
Guest Editors should not hold conflicts of interest with authors whose work they are assessing (e.g., from the same institution or collaborate closely). In this case, the Editor-in-Chief or a suitable Editorial Board member will make final acceptance decisions for submitted papers.
RCM adopts double-blind peer review. Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer-review. RCM editors will check to make sure there are no conflicts of interest before contacting reviewers, and will not consider those with competing interests. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest before reviewing any submitted manuscript.
In cases minor revisions/Major revisions are recommended, the author is usually requested to revise the paper before referring to the academic editor. Articles may or may not be sent to reviewers after minor revision, which depends on whether the reviewer requested to see the revised version or not. The revised manuscript after major revision will be sent back to reviewers again. Normally (In general) we will allow no more than two rounds of major revision each manuscript. Any further revision needed will follow the decision of academic editor.
All reviewer comments should be responded point-by-point. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response or rebuttal.
The acceptance of the manuscript will depend on the revisions made to the manuscript. Authors need to provide a point by point response or a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. The Acceptance or rejection decision will be made by academic editor after peer review. The academic editor can select from the following options: Accept in current form, accept with minor revisions, reject.
Authors may appeal a rejection judgement by sending an e-mail to the journal’s Editorial Office. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. The Managing Editor of the journal will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Editorial Board member. The Editor being consulted will subsequently be asked to provide an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.
RCM carries out production on all manuscripts, including copy editing, layout and conversion to XML. Language editing is carried out by professional English editing editors. We recommend authors use EJEAR's English editing service prior to publication or during revisions. If you have used an alternative service, please provide a copy certificate to the Editorial Office.
The submitted, accepted and published dates will be shown in the PDF and XML/HTML files of the published articles, a digital object identifier (DOI) number will also be assigned for each published article. The submitted date is the date on which the editors received the original (or if previously rejected, the resubmitted) manuscript. The revised date is the date on which the editors received the final revision of manuscript. The accepted date is when the editor sends the acceptance letter. The published date is the earliest date that the final version-of-record is made available on the publisher's website.
RCM follow the following guidelines and standards for its journals:
ICMJE: Medically related RCM follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The guidelines comprehensively cover all aspects of editing, from how the journal is managed to details about peer review and handling complaints.
PRISMA covers systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventional studies and MOOSE for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors are recommended to complete the checklist and flow diagram and include it with their submission.
CARE guidelines (for case reports) was developed by an international group of experts to support an increase in the accuracy, transparency, and usefulness of case reports. View and download the CARE checklist.
Other related guidelines, please visit https://www.equator-network.org/.
Submission of a manuscript to RCM implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies.
RCM follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
Our journals follow COPE’s procedures for dealing with potentially unethical behavior by authors, reviewers or editors. RCM editorial staff are trained in how to detect and respond to potential ethical problems.
More information about our Publishing Ethics policy.
Editorial independence dictates that decision to accept or reject a manuscript is based on the scientific merit of the article but not to any other relations for example pressure from the publisher to the journal editor. This means that Editor is independent in his/her decision and will not be under pressure of any influential body or organization.
Our editorial policy is consistent with the principles of editorial independence presented by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
Updated on 10 May 2021