Insuficiencia Cardiaca follows a single-blind peer review process: reviewers are aware of the authors’ identity, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. The editorial workflow is designed to ensure scientific rigor, transparency, and ethical integrity in cardiology and cardiovascular medicine publishing.
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts electronically through the journal’s online submission system or designated email address, following the Instructions for Authors regarding format, structure, ethical approvals, and reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, as applicable). All submissions must include a cover letter, title page, main text, figures/tables, and any required supplementary files.
2. Administrative and Technical Check
The editorial office conducts an initial check to verify that:
The manuscript fits the scope of cardiology and cardiovascular medicine, with particular relevance to heart failure and related conditions.
The submission complies with the journal’s formatting requirements, reference style, and language quality.
All required ethical statements (e.g. ethics committee approval, informed consent, animal care) and conflict-of-interest declarations are included where applicable.
Manuscripts that do not meet basic technical or ethical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further consideration or may be rejected at this stage.
3. Plagiarism and Ethical Screening
All manuscripts undergo a plagiarism check using similarity-detection software. The editorial team assesses potential overlap with published literature and evaluates compliance with ethical standards (including authorship, originality, duplicate submission, and data integrity). Submissions with evidence of serious ethical or integrity issues may be rejected or referred for further investigation in line with international publishing ethics (e.g. COPE guidelines).
4. Editorial Triage and Assignment to Handling Editor
After passing the initial checks, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned senior editor performs a scientific triage to assess:
Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
Originality and potential contribution to the field
Overall scientific and methodological soundness
Based on this assessment, the manuscript may be:
Rejected without external review (desk rejection) if it is clearly unsuitable or insufficiently competitive, or
Assigned to a Handling Editor, who will oversee the peer review process.
5. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers
The Handling Editor selects typically two or more independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise in cardiology, cardiovascular medicine, or related disciplines. Reviewers are invited and provided with:
The manuscript (with author identities visible, in line with single-blind review)
Reviewer guidelines and evaluation criteria
A deadline for submitting their review report
Reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest and may decline the invitation if they feel unable to provide an objective assessment.
6. Single-Blind Peer Review
In the single-blind review process, reviewers know the identity and affiliations of the authors, but the authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript with respect to:
Originality and importance of the research question
Methodological rigor and appropriateness of the study design and analysis
Clarity of presentation and completeness of reporting
Validity of the results and strength of the conclusions
Ethical aspects of the study
Relevance for cardiology and cardiovascular medicine, particularly in the context of heart failure and related conditions
Reviewers provide a structured report and a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject). They may also submit confidential comments to the editor.
7. Editorial Decision
The Handling Editor considers:
The reviewers’ reports and recommendations
The scientific quality and novelty of the work
The balance of content within the journal’s recent and upcoming issues
On this basis, the Handling Editor makes one of the following decisions:
Accept
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject
The Editor-in-Chief may be consulted for borderline or complex cases. The decision letter, including anonymized reviewer comments, is then communicated to the corresponding author.
8. Revision and Resubmission
If a revision is invited, authors are requested to:
Submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe
Provide a detailed response to reviewers, explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where applicable, why a suggestion could not be implemented
The revised manuscript may be:
Evaluated by the Handling Editor alone (for minor revisions), or
Sent back to one or more original reviewers (for major revisions), depending on the extent of the changes.
Multiple rounds of revision may occur until a final decision is reached.
9. Final Acceptance and Production
Once a manuscript is accepted, it is transferred to the production process, which includes:
Copy-editing for language, style, and consistency
Formatting according to the journal’s layout
Proof generation and author proof correction (limited to typographical and minor corrections)
After approval of the final proofs, the article is scheduled for publication and assigned to a specific issue of Insuficiencia Cardiaca. Articles may be posted online ahead of print where applicable.
10. Publication and Post-Publication
The article is published with its assigned DOI, ISSNs, and final citation details. The journal encourages:
Indexing and discoverability in relevant databases and platforms
Post-publication discussion in the form of letters to the editor or commentaries, which are subject to editorial evaluation
Correction of the scientific record when necessary (errata, corrigenda, or retractions) in accordance with recognized editorial and ethical standards.