The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor-in-chief in making a decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript.
The Cardiovascular Biomedicine Journal (CBJ) uses a double-blind peer review system.
Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that:
• The manuscript is within their area of expertise.
• They can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
Base on WAME: “Conflict of interest exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”. According to ICMJE: “Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”.
Manuscripts are confidential materials; so, reviewers should preserve the confidentiality of the manuscripts. Details of the manuscripts and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.
Regarding the confidentiality of the peer-review process, the COPE recommends: “Respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others”.
Reviews should be honest and objective and not be influenced by:
• The origin of the manuscript
• Religious, political, or cultural viewpoint of the authors
• Gender, race, ethnicity, or citizenry of the authors
In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:
• Contribution to the field
• Technical quality
• Clarity of presentation
• Depth of research
Also, following the instruction for authors, editorial policies, and publication ethics should be considered by reviewers.
Their report should be accurate, objective, constructive, and unambiguous. Their comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regard to the content of the manuscript.
Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.
Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:
• Requires minor corrections
• Requires major revision
The recommendation should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.
Reviewers should only accept a manuscript when they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time to reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.