Peer review policy

International Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research (IJCCR) maintains rigorous peer review standards guided by internationally recognized ethical and publication guidelines. The IJCCR peer review policy ensures fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and integrity in the assessment and publication of submitted manuscripts. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in IJCCR.

The peer review process can be broadly summarized into following steps, although these steps can vary slightly between journals.

Submission of Original Research Article/ Review Article/ Case Report / Case Studies: The corresponding or submitting author submits the Manuscript to the IJCCR. This is usually via an online submission and editor mail id:  editor@ijccr.info such as Scholar-One Manuscripts. Occasionally, IJCCR may accept submissions by E-mail: editor@ijccr.info

Initial Evaluation/Technical Review: The Editor(s) first evaluates all the manuscripts. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal, or not written as per the journal's guidelines. Those that meet the minimum criteria are forwarded to at least 2 experts for review.

Review is conducted: The reviewer sets time aside to read the manuscript several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the manuscript without further work. Otherwise they will read the article several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review policy. The review is then submitted to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of IJCCR, with a recommendation to accept or reject it or else with a request for revision either major or minor before it is reconsidered of manuscript.

Editorial Board Assessment: The Editorial Board Member of IJCCR checks the manuscript composition and arrangement against the IJCCR Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the manuscript is not assessed at this point.

Role of Editor-in-Chief: The Editor-in-Chief checks that the manuscript is appropriate for the IJCCR and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the manuscript may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

Editor-in-Chief Assigns an Associate Editor: IJCCR have Associate Editors who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.

IJCCR Evaluates the Reviews: The Editor-in-Chief of IJCCR considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision from reviewer’s side. If the reviews different widely, the Editor-in-Chief of IJCCR may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a final decision.

The Decision is communicated: The Editor-in-Chief of IJCCR sends a final decision via given E-mail to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the IJCCR operates.

The Decision for Publication: If the manuscript accepted, the manuscript is sent to final publication. If the manuscript is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Editor-in-Chief of IJCCR should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article.

Special cases: Guest Editors of Special Issues or Focused Sections are excluded from the review process and publication decisions when they are authors of or contributors to a manuscript. In such cases, the review process and publication decision will be overseen by one of the Editors of the journal.

Communications with authors: At each stage of the review process, authors will be provided reasoned and constructive feedback about the decisions on their manuscript.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The confidentiality of participants in the review process is protected.