Introduction

Dialogues in Cardiovascular Medicine (DCM) relies on the expertise and commitment of qualified reviewers to maintain the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. Peer review is an essential component of scholarly publishing and plays a critical role in ensuring that published articles meet accepted academic and ethical standards.

The journal follows a Single-Blind Peer Review process, in which reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while reviewer identities remain confidential.

DCM is committed to maintaining high editorial and ethical standards and follows the principles and best practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and internationally recognized scholarly publishing standards.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly.

• Assess the scientific quality and originality of the work.

• Provide constructive and evidence-based feedback.

• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

• Identify ethical concerns when observed.

• Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

• Submit reviews within the requested timeframe.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should consider whether:

• The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.

• They can provide an unbiased assessment.

• They have sufficient time to complete the review.

• No conflicts of interest exist.

If a reviewer identifies a conflict of interest or feels unable to provide an objective review, they should decline the invitation promptly.

How to Review a Manuscript

Reviewers should assess the manuscript using the following criteria:

1. Title and Abstract

Evaluate whether:

• The title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.

• The abstract clearly summarizes the study objectives, methods, results, and conclusions.

• Keywords are relevant and appropriate.

2. Introduction

Consider whether:

• The research problem is clearly stated.

• Relevant literature has been adequately reviewed.

• The study objectives are clearly defined.

3. Methodology

Assess:

• Study design and appropriateness.

• Sample selection and size.

• Data collection procedures.

• Statistical analysis methods.

• Reproducibility and transparency of methods.

• Ethical approval and participant protections where applicable.

4. Results

Review whether:

• Results are presented clearly and logically.

• Tables and figures are relevant and properly labeled.

• Data support the findings reported.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

Evaluate whether:

• Findings are interpreted appropriately.

• Conclusions are supported by the data.

• Limitations are acknowledged.

• The study contributes meaningful knowledge to the field.

6. References

Assess whether:

• References are relevant and current.

• Citations support the statements made in the manuscript.

• Important literature has not been omitted.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should alert the editorial office if they identify potential issues related to:

• Plagiarism

• Duplicate publication

• Data fabrication or falsification

• Image manipulation

• Unethical research practices

• Inappropriate authorship claims

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Reviewer Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

• Accept

• Minor Revisions

• Major Revisions

• Reject

Reviewers should provide clear reasoning and constructive comments to support their recommendation.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscript content with third parties.

• Discuss unpublished work outside the review process.

• Use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.

Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain respectful and professional language.
• Avoid personal criticism of authors.
• Focus comments on scientific content and methodology.
• Provide clear, objective, and actionable feedback.

Commitment to Publication Ethics

Dialogues in Cardiovascular Medicine is committed to responsible scholarly publishing and follows the ethical principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal also strives to maintain the quality, transparency, peer-review integrity, and editorial standards expected by leading international indexing and abstracting databases.

We greatly appreciate the valuable contributions of our reviewers in maintaining the scientific excellence and credibility of the journal.