Peer Review Workflow

All manuscripts submitted to Cardiovascular and Interventions undergo an initial editorial assessment to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting requirements, and ethical standards. Submissions deemed unsuitable at this stage may be rejected without external review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are subject to a double-blind peer review process. At least two independent external reviewers—selected based on subject-matter expertise and relevant academic qualifications—are invited to provide detailed, objective, and evidence-based evaluations.

The purpose of the peer review is to assess the scientific quality, originality, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity of the submission, as well as to evaluate its structure, clarity, and referencing.

Final decisions on acceptance, revision, or rejection are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with Associate Editors, based on a thorough assessment of reviewer reports and overall editorial judgment.

The editorial and publication processes of the Journal are conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The Journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/).

Key questions for the reviewers:

• Doesthe title reflect the content of the manuscript?
• Arethe key words appropriate?
• Doesthe abstract summarize the manuscript? Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript? Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and the paper?
• Is the study based onthe review of the medical literature in the introduction? Is the purpose of the study defined? Is there a hypothesis or a research question?
• Do the authors haveInformed Consent and Ethical Committee Approval in the patients (materials) and methods section?
• Is therea clear explanation of the methods enabling to reproduce the results independently?
• Doesdiscussion begin with the most important findings? Does it compare the results with the relevant literature? Are the limitations and conclusion clear enough? Are all the references in the proper format?

Accepting or Declining Invitations

Invitations to review manuscripts are sent to selected experts via the online submission system. Reviewers can accept or decline the invitation by clicking the appropriate link in the email. If they accept, they are required to confirm their availability within five (5) days.

If the editors do not receive a response within this time, they may assign the review task to another expert.

If an invited reviewer feels they are too busy, engaged in other projects, or find the topic outside their area of expertise, they are encouraged to decline the invitation promptly by clicking the "decline" link in the invitation email.

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. Authors who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.