Reviewer Procedure

The Heart Research open journal, published by the BMJ, follows a structured peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality cardiovascular research. As a reviewer for Heart, your role is crucial in maintaining the journal's standards.

1. Review Process:

  • Double-Blind Review: Heart employs a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

  • Constructive Feedback: Provide constructive and helpful comments, focusing on the scientific merit and clarity of the manuscript. Organize your feedback into major and minor comments to assist authors in addressing specific areas.

2. Ethical Considerations:

  • Confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share or discuss them with others without explicit authorization from the editor.

  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence your review. This includes personal, professional, or financial relationships with the authors or related entities.

3. Review Content:

  • Abstract and Introduction: Assess whether the abstract accurately reflects the study's objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. Ensure the introduction clearly states the research question and its significance.

  • Methods: Evaluate the appropriateness and rigor of the study design, data collection, and analysis methods. Ensure that the methods are clearly described and reproducible.

  • Results: Examine whether the results are presented clearly and logically, with appropriate use of tables and figures. Ensure that all data points are included and that figures display the maximum amount of data in an unambiguous and intuitive format.

  • Discussion: Ensure that the discussion accurately interprets the results, acknowledges limitations, and suggests implications for practice or further research. Avoid overgeneralizations and ensure that conclusions are justified by the data presented.

4. Final Recommendations:

  • Decision: Based on your evaluation, recommend one of the following:

    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without revisions.

    • Minor Revision Required: The manuscript requires minor revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.

    • Major Revision Required: The manuscript requires significant revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.

    • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

  • Comments to the Editor: Provide a summary of your evaluation and the reasons for your recommendation.

  • Comments to the Author: Offer constructive feedback to help the authors improve their manuscript. Focus on substantive issues and provide concrete suggestions for revision. Avoid focusing on minor issues such as typos or grammar, as these will be addressed by the journal's copy editors.

By adhering to these guidelines, you contribute significantly to the integrity and quality of research published in Heart.