Peer Review Policy

所有提交发表的稿件都将采用双盲审稿制度，即作者与审稿人彼此匿名。此举旨在确保对研究工作的评价公正客观，不受任何偏见影响。 审稿过程中将重点识别学术不端行为，包括虚假学术贡献、伪造结果、数据造假以及剽窃行为，以维护已发表研究的真实性和可信度。 我们的首要目标是确保只有高质量且具有原创性的研究成果才能进入科学领域并被发表传播。
《中华心脏病学杂志》遵循一套结构清晰、透明公开的审稿制度。我们制定了明确的规则和流程，审稿人及编辑委员会成员在评审提交稿件时必须严格遵守。这不仅维护了出版伦理标准，也确保了审稿过程的一致性。 每篇投稿都会经过严格审查，如果发现论文存在误导性内容、抄袭行为或不适合发表的情况，将立即予以拒稿。 编辑委员会会在综合研究内容各方面及审稿人反馈意见后，做出最终决定。 然而，我们也理解部分稿件可能存在一些不影响研究质量的小错误。在这种情况下，我们会给作者提供修改的机会，而不是直接拒绝稿件。作者必须根据审稿人提出的具体意见进行修改，并在规定时间内重新提交稿件。 重新提交后，论文将再次进入评审流程，以确认所有建议的修改是否已被恰当地落实。 如果审稿人和编辑认为问题已被充分解决，该文章将被接受并发表。

此外，我们根据审稿人在相关学科领域的知识与经验来遴选审稿专家。审稿人须遵守伦理准则，并确保其评审意见完全基于论文的科学质量作出判断。 我们坚决反对任何不公平、有偏见或不专业的审稿行为。任何违反这些伦理标准的审稿人都可能被撤换或永久移除出审稿团队。 如果作者认为稿件遭遇不公正拒稿，也可以提出上诉以保障透明度。此类上诉将由资深编辑成员审查，若被认为合理，该稿件将被重新评估。

通过遵循这一严格的同行评审流程，我们确保本期刊在分子科学领域持续保持其发表可信、有影响力且高质量研究成果的声誉。

Double-blind review, in which both the author and the reviewer remain anonymous to one another, will be conducted on all manuscripts submitted for publication. This ensures an unbiased and fair evaluation of the research work. The review process includes detecting misconduct, fake academic contributions, false outcomes, data fabrication, and plagiarism to maintain the authenticity and credibility of published research. Our primary aim is to ensure that only high-quality and original research makes its way into the scientific world.

The Chinese Journal of Cardiology follows a structured and transparent review system. We have a well-defined set of rules and procedures that our reviewers and editorial board members must adhere to while evaluating submitted manuscripts. This upholds ethical publishing standards and ensures consistency in the review process. Every submission is thoroughly checked, and if a paper is found to be misleading, copied, or unsuitable for publication, it will be rejected immediately. After taking into consideration all aspects of the research and the feedback provided by the reviewers, the editorial board has final say over such decisions. However, we understand that some manuscripts may have minor errors that do not significantly impact the quality of research. We give authors the chance to revise their work based on specific feedback from the reviewers rather than simply rejecting the paper. The revised manuscript must be re-submitted within the given timeframe. Once resubmitted, the paper will undergo another round of evaluation to verify that all suggested changes have been properly implemented. If the reviewers and editors find that the issues have been satisfactorily addressed, the article will be accepted for publication.

Our review procedure is fair to authors while maintaining high academic standards. We give our reviewers constructive feedback, and authors are given multiple chances to improve their work if necessary. Depending on the nature and severity of the errors found, the process of resubmission and re-reviewing can be repeated as many times as necessary. This approach allows us to filter out weak research while also helping authors improve their work and contribute valuable findings to the scientific community.

Additionally, we select our reviewers based on their knowledge and experience in the subject area. They are expected to follow ethical guidelines and ensure that their judgments are purely based on the scientific quality of the paper. We strongly discourage reviews that are unfair, biased, or unprofessional. Any member of the review panel who violates these ethical standards may be removed. Authors can also appeal editorial decisions if they believe their manuscript was rejected unfairly to ensure transparency. Such appeals will be reviewed by senior editorial members, and if deemed valid, the paper will be re-evaluated.

By following this rigorous peer review process, we ensure that our journal maintains its reputation for publishing credible, impactful, and high-quality research in the field of molecular sciences.