Frequently Asked Questions
Getting Started
OpenSource: Cardiology is a peer-reviewed cardiology journal created by and for physicians, built on a transparent, meritocratic review model. High-quality reviewers earn recognition and co-authorship opportunities, creating a more equitable academic publishing ecosystem rooted in clinical expertise.
Potential reviewers are drawn from our Editorial Board. If you are interested in joining, please submit an application via the Editorial Application page and our team will be in touch.
Navigate to the Profile page and fill out your Personal Information, Academic Affiliation, and Subspecialty & Expertise sections. A complete profile helps the editorial team assign you manuscripts that match your expertise.
We strongly encourage you to add your ORCID iD — this links your reviews to your professional academic record.
Our full editorial policies are published on the Policies page. They cover peer review, corrections and retractions, scientific misconduct and appeals, copyright and licensing, preprints, data sharing, clinical trial registration, patient consent and privacy, editorial independence and disclosures, and the use of artificial intelligence.
We encourage all authors, reviewers, and editors to read them before submitting or reviewing a manuscript.
For any questions, feedback, or support, email us at support@opensourcecardiology.org. You can also use the contact form at the bottom of this page — our editorial team typically responds within one business day.
Our mailing address is:
OpenSource Journals, Inc.
117 South Lexington Street, Ste 100
Harrisonville, MO 64701
For Authors
Aims and scope. OpenSource: Cardiology is a general cardiology journal. We consider work across the whole of cardiovascular medicine and cardiothoracic surgery — clinical, translational, and health-services research, along with education, practice, and policy — with no subspecialty excluded and no preference for one area over another. Interventional and structural cardiology, electrophysiology, heart failure and transplant, imaging and nuclear cardiology, prevention and lipids, congenital and adult congenital disease, critical care cardiology, vascular medicine, cardio-oncology, cardiac and thoracic surgery: all of it is in scope.
What decides a submission is the quality and usefulness of the work, not the topic. We are equally interested in a definitive multicenter trial and in a well-made observational study, a negative or confirmatory finding, a single instructive image, or a first-person essay about practicing cardiology — which is why the article types below span that range.
OpenSource: Cardiology publishes eight article types. Word limits are suggested guidelines and exclude the title page, abstract, references, tables, and figure legends. Select the matching type in the submission portal; see How do I format my manuscript? for title-page and abstract structure.
Click any article type below to see what we're looking for.
| Article Type | Suggested word limit | Abstract | Figures/Tables | Open-access fee |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ▶Original Research* | 4,000 | Structured, ≤350 words | No limit | None* |
We welcome all original research. Our goal is to lower barriers to publication while maintaining rigorous peer review — if you did the work carefully and the findings are meaningful, we want to see it. Studies we especially encourage:
A note on commonly overused datasets: we discourage submissions that rely primarily on datasets with well-documented validity and overuse limitations, including TriNetX, the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), and the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Studies using these sources face a higher bar for demonstrating that the specific research question genuinely requires them and that their limitations have been rigorously addressed. We are not categorically opposed, but authors should expect close scrutiny of methodology and interpretation. Manuscripts relying solely on a single such database are unlikely to be accepted; we recommend using an alternative database or validating your results in a second database. | ||||
| ▶Review Article | 5,000 | Unstructured, ≤300 words | No limit | $500 |
| A critical synthesis of the literature on a defined topic or clinical question — narrative, state-of-the-art, or systematic. Keep the scope tight and take a position: tell the reader which evidence is strong, which is weak, and what to actually do. A central illustration and a summary table go a long way; systematic reviews and meta-analyses should include a PRISMA diagram and the search strategy. | ||||
| ▶Research Letter | ≤1,000 | None (1 graphical abstract) | ≤2 | None |
| Original research that is complete but compact — not a preliminary version of a full paper. This is the right format when a study has one clear message: a focused secondary analysis, a single-center series, an early real-world experience, or a brief confirmatory or contradictory finding. There is no abstract; instead, a single graphical abstract can be used to carry the finding on its own. Peer review is the same as for Original Research, and publication is free. | ||||
| ▶Critical Appraisal | ≤2,000 | None | ≤2 | $500 |
| A rigorous appraisal of a major trial, guideline, or body of evidence — the place to say out loud what people are muttering at the back of the late-breaker session. Build an argument: what the work claims, where that claim over- or under-reaches on methodological grounds (endpoint selection, power, subgroups, missing data, external validity), and what should — or should not — change in practice. Be fair to the work's strengths, and submit while it's timely, usually within a few months of the primary publication. Any relationship to the sponsors of the work being appraised must be disclosed. | ||||
| ▶Editorial (by invitation) | ≤1,500 | None | ≤2 | None |
| Our forum for peer reviewers and invited experts to comment on an accepted manuscript or an emerging topic. State your thesis, place the work in context — what we knew before, what this adds, what's still unresolved — and end with a concrete "so what" for practice or for the next study that needs doing. Opinion-driven and readable; first person is welcome. Invited authors receive a personal submission link. | ||||
| ▶Imaging Pearl | ≤1,000 | None | ≤5 images/videos | $1,000 |
| One or more striking images or videos with a brief account of the case and the key findings. The image is the article — it should be immediately instructive, ideally with multimodality correlation (echo, CMR, PET, CT, pathology), high-resolution files, and clear arrows or labels. Close with a one- or two-sentence teaching point. Images must be fully de-identified and written patient consent is required; see Patient Consent & Privacy. | ||||
| ▶Industry Perspective | ≤2,000 | None | ≤5 | $5,000 / $10,000† |
| Peer-reviewed data or perspective pieces authored by industry scientists, labeled plainly as such on the published article. We want scientific content — bench and device data, pharmacology, trial-design rationale — with balanced treatment of competing approaches and full disclosure of sponsorship, employment, and who wrote the first draft. We do not publish marketing copy or claims beyond the regulatory label. Every submission undergoes full peer review, and the editorial decision is independent of the fee. | ||||
| ▶The Long View | ≤2,000 | None | ≤2 | None |
| Personal narrative essays, open to the whole cardiovascular community and to patients and families alike — a trainee's formative moment, burnout and recovery, a difficult diagnosis from the other side of the stethoscope, or the history behind something we now take for granted. What makes these land is a specific scene rather than a general reflection, and honesty over polish. First person, no abstract, references optional. Anyone identifiable must be de-identified or have consented. | ||||
* Original Research is published free. Manuscripts relying solely on a single database such as TriNetX, the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), or the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) — or other databases with known validity limitations — are unlikely to be accepted. We recommend using an alternative database or validating your results in a second database.
† $5,000 for a general industry perspective; $10,000 if specific commercial products are named.
Please prepare your manuscript as a single Word (.docx) document. There is no need to upload tables or figures as separate files — include everything in the one document.
1. Title page(s). The manuscript should begin with a title page containing:
- Full title
- Short title (running head)
- All authors' names
- Affiliations for each author
- An email address for every author — this streamlines the submission process and keeps all co-authors informed
- Corresponding author's name and full contact information
- Disclosures / conflicts of interest
- Funding sources
- Acknowledgements
2. Structured abstract. Original Research articles use a structured abstract organized under four headings:
- Background — the clinical question and why it matters
- Methods — study design, population, and analysis
- Results — the principal findings, with key data
- Conclusion — the main takeaway and its implications
Review Articles may use an unstructured (single-paragraph) abstract. See the article types table for which types require an abstract and the applicable word limit.
3. Main manuscript. For Original Research, structure the body as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. For other article types, use whatever structure best fits your content, adding headings and subheadings as needed to guide the reader.
4. References. Use standard reference formatting; a reference manager (e.g., EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley) can help produce consistent, properly formatted references. We recommend truncating each reference to a maximum of 10 authors, though any convention for the number of authors listed is acceptable.
5. Tables and figures. Place all tables and figures at the end of the same document, each with a title and caption — there is no need to upload them separately. Good figures do two things: highlight your most important data and make your findings easy for readers to digest. We encourage including one summary figure of your study's key findings — a strong visual summary increases the reach and impact of your work and is easily reused in slide presentations, on social media, and elsewhere.
Manuscripts are submitted through the Author Dashboard. You will need to create an account to begin a submission. All submissions are reviewed for scope and quality by the editorial team prior to peer review assignment.
OpenSource: Cardiology is fully open access, and authors retain copyright in their work — we do not require copyright transfer. Instead, you grant the journal a non-exclusive license to publish, and the article is released under the Creative Commons license you choose at acceptance.
At acceptance, the corresponding author selects one of the following on behalf of all authors:
- CC BY 4.0 (default, recommended) — others may distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the work, including commercially, as long as they credit the original authors.
- CC BY-NC 4.0 — others may remix and build upon the work non-commercially, with attribution.
- CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 — others may share the work with attribution; no derivatives or commercial use are permitted.
All three are the 4.0 International versions. If your research is funded by the NIH, Wellcome, a cOAlition S / Plan S member, or a similar body, note that these funders typically require CC BY — confirm your funder's requirements before choosing. See the Copyright & Licensing policy for full details.
Authors will have an opportunity to indicate how AI was used in the preparation of their manuscript in accordance with ICMJE guidance. There is no penalty for AI use — it simply needs to be clearly delineated how it was used (e.g., writing assistance, data analysis, figure generation). AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
Yes. By submitting a manuscript, authors consent to allowing AI tools to assist in the editorial and review process in order to streamline workflows and enhance consistency. This includes tasks such as submission assistance and copy editing.
As part of our standard review process, every submitted manuscript receives an AI-generated preliminary review — currently powered by Anthropic's Claude or a comparable large language model. This review is provided to the handling Associate Editor and reviewers as a supplementary reference alongside human peer review; it does not replace or substitute for human reviewer assessment.
Per Anthropic's commercial API terms, submitted manuscript content is not used to train AI models and is not retained by the model provider beyond the standard processing period. Your unpublished data remains confidential.
By submitting a review article to OpenSource: Cardiology, authors consent to the possibility that a peer reviewer may exercise a co-authorship credit on their manuscript under the journal's co-authorship program. This would only occur after the manuscript has been accepted, and the corresponding author will be notified and asked to confirm before any changes are made to the author list. The corresponding author will ultimately be able to approve or deny this coauthorship request. The corresponding author will also determine author order prior to resubmission, and the reviewer co-author will be clearly identified on the author byline.
Review Process
Access is granted by invitation or application through the Editorial Board. If you were invited, you should have received an email with a link to create your account. If you're interested in joining the reviewer pool, please submit an application via the Editorial Application page.
You'll receive an email notification when a manuscript is assigned to you. You can also check your Reviewer Dashboard at any time — assigned manuscripts appear under the "Assigned" tab.
Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should first ensure that they can provide a high-quality review within 14 days. To qualify for a five-star review, you must also accept the assignment within 3 days of receiving it and complete the review within 7 days of acceptance. Reviews submitted outside those windows may still be considered, but they will not be eligible for a five-star rating.
If you need more time, contact support@opensourcecardiology.org before the deadline and we will do our best to accommodate.
A strong review includes:
- A brief, neutral summary of the manuscript's aims and findings (1–2 paragraphs)
- Major concerns (methodological issues, unsupported conclusions, missing analyses)
- Minor comments (clarity, formatting, reference gaps)
- A clear recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject
See the Reviewer Guidelines for detailed guidance and examples.
Decline the assignment immediately in the portal and specify that you have a conflict of interest. You do not need to provide details.
Yes. All manuscripts under review are strictly confidential. Do not share, discuss, or cite any aspect of a manuscript you are reviewing until it is published. Violation of this policy may result in removal from the reviewer pool.
Credit Reimbursement
You earn 1 credit for each high-quality, timely peer review you complete — including reviews you perform as an Associate Editor. You also earn 1 credit when you publish original research as a first author in OpenSource: Cardiology.
Reviews are rated by the overseeing editors (see Who rates my reviews? below), and only high-quality, constructive reviews earn credit. Your running credit balance is tracked in real time in the sidebar of your Profile page.
Credits can be redeemed in three ways:
- No-charge editorial (1 credit) — write an original editorial commentary on any article published in OpenSource: Cardiology within the last 12 months. It appears with a DOI and your full authorship credit as a citable scholarly contribution under your name.
- Gift card (1 credit) — redeem for a gift card to your favorite vendor as a thank-you for your contribution.
- Co-authorship (3 credits) — be added as a co-author on a review article you peer-review and contribute to scientifically, per ICMJE guidelines. See What does co-authorship involve? below for the process.
Your reviews are rated by the Associate Editor and Editor in Chief overseeing the manuscript. Ratings are based on the depth, specificity, and constructiveness of your feedback — not on whether your recommendation matched the final decision.
Reviews must also be timely to earn credit: the invitation must be accepted within 3 days and the review completed within 7 days.
See the Reviewer Guidelines for a full description of the rating scale.
Once you have accumulated 3 credits, you may exercise a co-authorship credit on a review article that you subsequently peer-review. You will be able to exercise this option at the time of submitting your initial review of the manuscript.
This request will be kept completely confidential until the editorial decision is made to accept the manuscript. At that point, the corresponding author will be notified and will confirm that it is acceptable to add the reviewer as a co-author. The corresponding author will also choose the author order prior to resubmission.
A footnote will appear below the author byline on the published manuscript indicating that one of the authors served as a reviewer co-author.
When a reviewer joins a manuscript as a co-author, additional reviewers will be invited to maintain the integrity of peer review.
Account & Portal Access
Click Sign In on the homepage and then select Forgot password?. Enter your registered email address and we'll send you a password reset link.
Go to Profile → Contact Information, enter your new email address, and click Save Changes. You'll receive a confirmation email at both addresses to verify the change.
Your ORCID iD is a persistent digital identifier for researchers. Adding it to your profile links your review activity to your broader academic record and is increasingly required by funding bodies and publishers. You can find your ORCID (or register for one) at orcid.org.
Yes. Go to Profile and select Deactivate Account from the sidebar. Deactivating your account revokes access, hides your public profile, removes you from active editorial roles, and returns active assignments to the journal. Records necessary to preserve the integrity and auditability of completed peer review and published articles may be retained in restricted form. Contact us to request deletion or anonymization of other personal information. A deactivated account may be restored by contacting the journal.
If you're having a specific issue, please reach out using the form below — we'd love to help.