Reviewer Guidelines — OpenSource: Cardiology

01

Our Review Model

OpenSource: Cardiology uses a single-blind peer review process: reviewers know the authors' identities, but authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript. This model reflects the reality of a specialized subspecialty and allows reviewers to apply their domain expertise without artificial anonymization.

Every manuscript is assigned to one or more reviewers by the Associate Editor overseeing the submission. You will be notified by email when a new assignment is ready in your portal.

⏱️

Review Window

You have 14 days from assignment to submit your review. Contact the editorial office promptly if you need an extension.

📩

Decline Gracefully

If you have a conflict of interest or cannot complete a review, decline the assignment as soon as possible so it can be reassigned without delay.

🔒

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are confidential. Do not share, cite, or discuss any aspect of an assigned manuscript with colleagues outside the review process.

⭐

Rating System

Editors rate your reviews on a 5-star scale. A five-star review requires the manuscript to be accepted within 3 days of assignment and the review completed within 7 days of acceptance. Accumulate 5 five-star ratings to qualify for co-authorship on a journal editorial.

02

The Review Process

1

Read the Manuscript Thoroughly

Read the full manuscript at least twice before writing your review. On the first pass, read the abstract, skim each section, and carefully examine the tables and figures to get an overall sense of the work. On the second pass, read thoroughly — assessing methodological rigor, statistical analysis, internal consistency, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data.
2

Assess Originality & Significance

Evaluate whether the work adds meaningfully to the cardiology literature. Is the research question important? Are the findings novel? Could this change clinical practice or guide future research?
3

Evaluate Methods & Statistical Rigor

Assess the study design, patient selection, endpoint definitions, statistical methodology, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. Flag any methodological weaknesses clearly and constructively.
4

Write Your Review

Structure your written comments as: (a) a brief summary of the work (1–2 paragraphs maximum), (b) major concerns, and (c) minor comments. Be specific — reference line numbers, tables, or figures where relevant. Avoid vague or dismissive language.
5

Submit Your Recommendation

Select one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Ensure your written comments are consistent with your recommendation.

03

Evaluation Criteria

Use the following criteria as a framework when assessing a manuscript. Not all criteria will apply equally to every manuscript type (e.g., case reports vs. RCTs).

Criterion	What to Assess
Originality	Does the manuscript present novel findings or perspectives? Is it clearly differentiated from existing literature?
Scientific Rigor	Is the study design appropriate? Are statistical methods sound and correctly applied? Are limitations acknowledged?
Clinical Relevance	Will these findings influence clinical practice, guidelines, or future research in cardiology?
Clarity of Writing	Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured? Are tables and figures informative and well-labeled?
Ethical Compliance	Is there evidence of IRB/ethics board approval where required? Are data sources and conflicts of interest disclosed?
References	Are citations current, appropriate, and properly formatted? Are seminal works in the field cited?

04

Writing Constructive Comments

The goal of peer review is to help authors improve their work, not to gatekeep. Even when recommending rejection, explain your reasoning clearly so authors can learn from the feedback.

Do:

Be specific — reference line numbers, figures, or tables
Suggest how to fix identified problems, not just list them
Acknowledge the strengths of the manuscript alongside its weaknesses
Separate major concerns from minor stylistic comments
Use professional, collegial language throughout

Avoid:

Vague criticisms without explanation (e.g., "the methods are inadequate")
Requesting unnecessary additional experiments to delay publication
Recommending citation of your own work without scientific justification
Disclosing your identity in the comments to authors

05

Editor Rating Scale

After you submit a review, the overseeing Associate Editor will rate the quality of your work. These ratings are cumulative toward your co-authorship eligibility.

★★★★★

Exceptional — Thorough, specific, and constructive. Completed in a timely fashion (accepted within 3 days, submitted within 7 days of acceptance). It is clear to the Associate Editors and Editors that you have read and independently assessed the manuscript without the use of AI. This is what co-authorship eligibility is built on.

★★★★☆

Strong — Solid review that addressed the key issues. Minor gaps in depth or specificity.

★★★☆☆

Adequate — Met minimum standards but was surface-level. Lacked depth on methodological issues or missed important concerns.

★★☆☆☆

Below Expectations — Insufficient depth or specificity. Review was not helpful to the editorial process.

★☆☆☆☆

Unsatisfactory — Review did not meet minimum standards. Repeated instances may result in reassignment of future manuscripts.

06

Ethics & Conflicts of Interest

Peer review integrity is fundamental to the mission of OpenSource: Cardiology. You must disclose and recuse yourself from reviewing any manuscript where a conflict of interest exists.

You have a personal or professional conflict that could bias your assessment
You are employed at the same institution as a primary author
You don't feel that you can appropriately review this manuscript in an unbiased fashion