Chinese Journal of Cardiology

Reviewers Guidelines

我们的审稿人在维护已发表研究的质量、诚信与可信度方面起着至关重要的作用。同行评审过程可确保仅发表高质量、研究充分、符合伦理的文章。作为审稿人，您的专业见解与知识不仅帮助作者完善其工作，同时也维护了期刊的出版标准。
审稿人的基本职责
保密性 – 审稿人必须将所有稿件视为机密文件，不得共享、讨论或将稿件中的任何部分用于个人或职业利益。
客观与公正 – 评审应公正进行，避免偏见或人身攻击。反馈应具有建设性，帮助作者提升其研究质量。
按时完成审稿 – 审稿人应在规定期限内完成审稿工作，避免出版流程的延误。如无法按时完成，应尽早告知编辑部。
利益冲突 – 如审稿人与作者或其所在机构存在个人、经济或职业上的关联，须主动回避评审，并及时通知编辑团队。
伦理问题 – 若审稿人发现稿件存在抄袭、重复投稿、数据造假或其他伦理问题，应立即报告期刊编辑团队。
审稿流程与评审标准
审稿人应根据以下关键方面对稿件进行评估：
原创性与重要性 – 该研究是否在分子科学领域中提出了新的见解或突破？是否具有相关性和影响力？
科学严谨性与方法学 – 研究方法是否设计合理、适当并可重复？结果是否有效且可信？
清晰度与结构 – 稿件是否结构清晰、逻辑合理、书写规范？是否符合期刊的格式要求？
数据完整性与伦理合规 – 是否存在抄袭、人类或动物研究缺乏伦理审批、数据造假等问题？
参考文献与引用 – 是否正确引用了所有相关研究？是否提供了充分的文献以支持其论点？
审稿人应当：
要具体——突出需要改进的领域并提供明确的建议。
保持专业——使用尊重的语言，避免严厉的批评。
要全面 – 既要指出手稿的优点，也要指出其缺点。
审阅后，审稿人将被要求推荐以下决定之一：
接受原样 – 手稿已准备好出版，无需重大修改。
小修订——手稿在接受之前需要进行小的修改。
重大修订——需要进行重大改进，修订后应重新评估稿件。
拒绝——该手稿不符合期刊的出版标准。

Our reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. The peer-review process ensures that only high-quality, well-researched, and ethically sound articles are published. As a reviewer, your insights and expertise help authors refine their work while upholding the journal’s publishing standards.

General Responsibilities of Reviewers
1. Confidentiality – Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and should not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
2. Objectivity & Fairness – Reviews should be conducted fairly, without bias, or personal criticism. Feedback should be constructive, helping authors improve their work.
3. Timely Review – Reviewers should complete their reviews within the given deadline to avoid unnecessary delays in the publishing process. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
4. Conflict of Interest – If a reviewer has any conflict of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or professional connections with the authors or their institutions), they must decline the review and inform the editorial team. Ethical Concerns – If a reviewer identifies plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or ethical violations, they should report it immediately to the journal’s editorial team

Review Process & Criteria
1. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following key aspects:
2. Originality & Significance – Does the research present new insights or advancements in molecular sciences? Is it relevant and impactful?
3. Scientific Rigor & Methodology – Are the research methods well-designed, appropriate, and reproducible? Are the results valid and reliable?
4. Clarity & Organization – Is the manuscript well-structured, clear, and logically written? Does it follow the journal’s formatting guidelines?
5. Data Integrity & Ethical Compliance – Are there any concerns regarding plagiarism, ethical approval for human/animal research, or data manipulation?
6. References & Citations – Are all relevant studies properly cited? Does the manuscript include sufficient references to support its claims?

Reviewers are expected to:
• Be specific – Highlight areas that need improvement and provide clear suggestions.
• Be professional – Use respectful language and avoid harsh criticism.
• Be thorough – Address both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.
After reviewing, reviewers will be asked to recommend one of the following decisions:
• Accept as is – The manuscript is ready for publication with no major changes.
• Minor revisions – The manuscript requires small corrections before acceptance.
• Major revisions – Significant improvements are needed, and the manuscript should be re-evaluated after revisions.
• Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.