Dialogues in Cardiovascular Medicine (DCM) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, integrity, and transparency through a rigorous peer review process. Peer review is fundamental to scholarly publishing and helps ensure that published research is accurate, reliable, ethical, and relevant to the field of cardiovascular medicine.

The journal employs a Single-Blind Peer Review system, in which reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, while the identities of reviewers remain confidential.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by the editorial office and handling editor to determine whether it:

• Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
• Meets basic scientific and academic standards.
• Complies with ethical requirements.
• Adheres to the journal's submission guidelines.
• Demonstrates sufficient originality and relevance.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected before external peer review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts deemed suitable for peer review are assigned to independent experts with relevant subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Academic qualifications and experience.
• Subject-matter expertise.
• Research and publication record.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

The journal seeks reviewers who can provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.

Single-Blind Peer Review Process

Under the Single-Blind Peer Review model:

• Reviewers have access to author information.
• Authors do not have access to reviewer identities.
• Reviewer reports remain confidential.
• Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment.

The purpose of the review process is to evaluate the scientific merit, originality, methodology, significance, and ethical compliance of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on:

• Originality and novelty.
• Scientific quality and rigor.
• Methodological soundness.
• Statistical validity (where applicable).
• Relevance to cardiovascular medicine.
• Clarity and organization of the manuscript.
• Ethical compliance.
• Appropriateness of references and citations.
• Significance of findings and conclusions.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the editor may reach one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Accept with Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions Required
• Reject

Editorial decisions are made after careful consideration of reviewer comments, author responses, and the overall scientific value of the manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final publication decision.

Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests should address all reviewer comments carefully and provide a detailed response outlining changes made to the manuscript.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents.

Editors and reviewers must not:

• Disclose manuscript content to unauthorized individuals.
• Use unpublished information for personal benefit.
• Share reviewer reports outside the editorial process.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment.

Individuals with conflicts of interest may be excluded from participating in the review process.

Ethical Standards

The journal is committed to ethical publishing practices and follows the principles and best practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Any concerns related to:

• Plagiarism
• Duplicate publication
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Image manipulation
• Unethical research practices
• Authorship disputes

will be investigated according to established publication ethics procedures.

Appeals

Authors who believe an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural concern may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office. Appeals will be reviewed independently, and the final decision of the journal shall be considered binding.

Commitment to Quality

Dialogues in Cardiovascular Medicine is dedicated to ensuring a fair, objective, transparent, and timely peer review process. Through adherence to internationally recognized publishing ethics and editorial best practices, the journal seeks to maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and scholarly excellence.