Peer Review

Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications (CVIA) subjects all submitted research articles to the highest standards of international peer review:

  • At least two suitably qualified experts review each research article.
  • The journals’ Editor-in-Chief makes all publication decisions based on the reviews provided
  • The international Editorial Board Members assist the Editor-in-Chief in decision making on specific submissions
  • The international Editorial Board Members lend insight, advice, and guidance to the Editor-in-Chief
  • Administrative support for the review process is provided by the Managing Editors and Editorial Assistants. They uphold the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to all stakeholders including authors, reviewers, and editors alike.
  • We do not release referees’ identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
  • Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications (CVIA) uses the ScholarOne Thomson Reuter Manuscript tracking system to support its peer review process. This system has a long, successful track record with major journals and publishers globally.

Reviewers primarily evaluate the originality, validity and importance of the manuscripts, and provide detailed and evidence-based (with references) comments to help editors to make publication decisions (accept, revise or reject) and authors to make improvements.

The following points are considered during the review process.

1. Is the manuscript suitable for Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications (CVIA)?
Is it original and important?

The topic should be within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the readers. Reviewers also need to judge the originality and importance of the manuscript.

2. Is the study design appropriate and complete?

Any issues arising with regard to inclusion and exclusion criteria, blinding, sampling, interventions, baseline, end points, and follow-up should be pointed out and commented on. Reviewers should also assess if the details are sufficient for the authors’ counterparts to replicate the study.

3. Are the results and conclusions well-supported?

Reviewers should highlight if the data are incomplete, insufficient, or if there are errors, because the data may fail to lead to the results and thus the conclusions.

4. Are there any problems regarding statistics?

The statistics reviewer needs to make sure there are no flaws or errors regarding statistical methods and analyses.

5. Are there any ethical issues to be dealt with?

The authors should provide ethical approval from an appropriate ethical committee and informed consent from the subjects for any studies involving humans. Reviewers should question any disclosure of conflicts of interest that is unreasonably absent.

6. Confidentiality

Reviewers should respect and observe the confidentiality of the manuscript.

For information on our Conflict of Interest Policy for reviewers please click here.