1. Purpose of This Guide
This Reviewer Guide is intended to support reviewers of Insuficiencia Cardiaca in carrying out rigorous, fair, and timely peer review. The journal focuses on cardiology and cardiovascular medicine, with particular emphasis on heart failure and related conditions. As a reviewer, you play a central role in safeguarding scientific quality, clinical relevance, and ethical integrity.
2. The Role of the Reviewer
Reviewers help the editors to:
- Assess the scientific quality, originality, and clinical relevance of submitted manuscripts.
- Identify strengths, weaknesses, and potential improvements in study design, analysis, and interpretation.
- Ensure that ethical standards in human and animal research, patient data, and clinical reporting are respected.
- Support authors in improving the clarity, balance, and educational value of their work.
Your report provides expert advice to the editors. The final decision (acceptance, revision, or rejection) is made by the editorial team, taking into account reviewers’ comments, the journal’s scope, and the overall editorial balance.
3. Before You Accept a Review Invitation
When you receive an invitation to review, please ask yourself three questions:
- Do I have the right expertise? You should accept only if the manuscript falls within or close to your area of competence in cardiology or cardiovascular medicine. If you can comment on only part of the manuscript (for example, imaging, device therapy, statistics), you may indicate this to the editor.
- Do I have enough time? The journal usually requests a review to be completed within 2–3 weeks. If you cannot meet this timeframe, please decline promptly or propose a realistic deadline so the editor can decide whether to proceed with you.
- Do I have any conflict of interest? You should decline if you:
- Have recently collaborated closely with any of the authors (e.g., co-authorship, joint grants, same research group).
- Have a direct financial, personal, or professional interest that may be perceived as influencing your judgment.
- Feel unable to provide an objective and impartial evaluation for any reason.
If you are unsure about a possible conflict, please disclose it to the editor, who will decide whether it is acceptable.
4. Confidentiality
All manuscripts sent for review are confidential. As a reviewer, you must:
- Not share the manuscript with colleagues, trainees, or others without explicit permission from the editor.
- Not use any information or data from the manuscript for your own research, clinical practice, or teaching until it is publicly published.
- Not upload the manuscript, in whole or in part, to any public or commercial service, including generative AI tools.
If you would like a junior colleague to assist you for educational purposes, please ask the editor in advance and ensure that the colleague is also bound by strict confidentiality.
5. Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Tools by Reviewers
You may use AI-based tools to help with grammar or wording in your own review text, but you must not:
- Upload or paste the manuscript (or substantial parts of it) into generative AI systems or external tools that could store or reuse the content.
- Allow AI tools to “write” or “decide” the scientific content of your review.
You remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and originality of the review report you submit to the journal.
6. How to Read and Evaluate the Manuscript
When reviewing, please consider the manuscript systematically. The following checklist may help:
- Title and Abstract
Is the title accurate, informative, and specific? Does the abstract appropriately summarize the objectives, methods, main results, and conclusions, without overstating findings? - Introduction
Does the introduction clearly define the clinical or scientific problem, the rationale, and the main objectives or hypotheses? Is the background literature up to date and relevant? - Methods
Are the study design and methods appropriate to the research question (e.g. randomized trial, observational study, systematic review, case series)? Are inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size, data collection, and statistical analyses clearly described and justified?
For clinical or translational research, check whether:- Ethics committee / IRB approval is mentioned.
- Informed consent is obtained where applicable.
- Trial registration (for clinical trials) is provided.
- Results
Are the results clearly presented and logically organized? Are appropriate tables and figures used? Are the statistical analyses correct, and do they support the conclusions? Are measures of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals) reported where relevant? - Discussion
Does the discussion interpret the findings appropriately without over-claiming? Are the strengths and limitations of the study acknowledged? Are results compared with the existing literature in cardiology and heart failure? Are clinical implications and future research directions discussed? - Conclusions
Are the conclusions supported by the data? Are they clinically relevant and not exaggerated? - References
Are the references appropriate, up to date, and correctly formatted? Are key studies in the area cited? - Ethics and Patient Safety
For human and animal research, do the authors describe appropriate ethical approvals and care standards? Is patient privacy respected in clinical images and case descriptions? - Language and Presentation
Is the manuscript written in clear, comprehensible language (Spanish, Portuguese or English, as applicable)? While minor language issues are acceptable, severe language problems that obscure meaning should be noted. - Originality and Impact
Does the manuscript provide new knowledge, confirm or refine existing findings, or offer meaningful educational or clinical insights? Is the work relevant to clinicians and researchers in heart failure and cardiovascular medicine?
7. Structure of Your Review Report
A good review is organized, constructive, and respectful. We suggest structuring your report in three parts:
- Brief Summary
Write 3–6 sentences summarizing the purpose, methods, and main findings of the manuscript in your own words. This shows the editor that you have understood the work and helps frame your comments. - Major Comments
List the most important issues that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. These may include:- Concerns about study design or methodology.
- Insufficient or unclear data analysis.
- Inconsistencies between results and conclusions.
- Missing key data, ethical concerns, or inadequate reporting.
Explain why each point matters and, when possible, suggest solutions (e.g. additional analyses, clarifications, restructuring of sections).
- Minor Comments
Provide suggestions that would improve clarity and presentation but are not critical for the scientific validity, such as:- Typographical and grammatical corrections.
- Improved figure or table labeling.
- Clarification of ambiguous sentences or terms.
- Additional references for context.
Please keep your tone professional and collegial. The goal is to help authors improve their work, even when the final recommendation is to reject.
8. Confidential Comments to the Editor
Most of your comments should be included in the section visible to authors. You may, however, provide a short confidential note to the editor to:
- Highlight any serious concerns (e.g. suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, ethical violations).
- Explain nuances behind your recommendation (for example, when you feel the work is of high scientific quality but outside the journal’s scope).
Do not use the confidential section to make negative remarks about the authors that you would not be prepared to phrase constructively in the main report.
9. Recommendation Categories
At the end of your review, you will be asked to select a recommendation. Typical options are:
- Accept – the manuscript is suitable for publication with at most minor editorial corrections.
- Minor Revision – the manuscript is fundamentally sound but needs limited changes that do not require substantial additional data (e.g. clarifications, improved figures, small corrections).
- Major Revision – the manuscript has potential but requires significant modifications (e.g. additional analyses, substantial rewriting, better justification of methods, clearer limitation section) before it can be reconsidered.
- Reject – the manuscript has major flaws, limited novelty, or is outside the scope of the journal, such that it is unlikely to become suitable even after extensive revision.
Please explain your recommendation clearly in your comments. The editor may weigh multiple reviews and other factors, so the final decision may not always match each individual reviewer’s recommendation.
10. Reviewing Revised Manuscripts
If you reviewed an earlier version and are invited to review a revised manuscript:
- Read the authors’ point-by-point response to your comments and those of other reviewers.
- Check whether the authors have addressed the major and minor points adequately, and whether any new issues have arisen.
- Focus on changes and remaining concerns, but keep the overall context and your initial assessment in mind.
Your second review can usually be shorter, concentrating on whether the revision has resolved the key issues.
11. Ethical Issues and Suspected Misconduct
If, during your review, you suspect:
- Plagiarism or duplicate publication.
- Data fabrication or manipulation.
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
- Serious ethical violations in human or animal research.
Please report your concerns in a confidential note to the editor. Provide as much specific detail as possible (e.g. parts of the text that appear to overlap with another source, inconsistencies in data, missing ethical approvals).
Do not directly contact the authors about suspected misconduct; the editorial team will investigate following established publication ethics guidelines.
12. Anonymity and Recognition
Insuficiencia Cardiaca uses a single-blind review process: reviewers can see the authors’ identities, but reviewers’ names are not disclosed to the authors unless both parties and the editor agree to do so under specific circumstances (e.g. invited commentaries).
The journal appreciates the voluntary contribution of reviewers. When possible, we may provide acknowledgments, certificates, or annual recognition of reviewers’ efforts, respecting confidentiality where required.
13. Timeliness and Communication
Timely reviews are essential to maintain the journal’s target of approximately four months from submission to publication. If circumstances prevent you from completing the review within the agreed timeframe:
- Notify the editor as soon as possible.
- Indicate whether you can still complete the review with a short extension, or if you need to withdraw.
Clear communication helps the editorial office to manage manuscripts fairly for all authors.
14. Contact and Support
If you have any questions regarding a specific manuscript, the review process, or this Reviewer Guide, please contact the editorial office:
Insuficiencia Cardiaca – Editorial Office
Email: editor@insuficienciacardiaca.press
Alternative contact: revista@insuficienciacardiaca.press
We greatly appreciate your time, expertise, and contribution to the quality of Insuficiencia Cardiaca.