Our Review Model
OpenSource: Cardiology uses a single-anonymized peer review process (formerly called single-blind): reviewers know the authors' identities, but authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript. This model allows reviewers to apply their domain expertise and offer honest critiques and suggestions without fear of retribution.
Every manuscript is assigned to one or more reviewers by the Associate Editor overseeing the submission. You will be notified by email when a new assignment is ready in your portal. The editorial team reserves the right to synthesize reviewer feedback into the key revision priorities communicated to authors.
Do not upload manuscripts, figures, or any portion of an assigned submission to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any other AI chatbot or external service. Doing so breaches the confidentiality of unpublished work. OpenSource: Cardiology already runs an automated AI assessment of every manuscript as part of the editorial workflow, so there is no need for human reviewers to use AI tools — we rely on your independent expert judgment.
Review Window
Decline Gracefully
Confidentiality
Rating System
The Review Process
The structure below is a suggested format for organizing your review. You are welcome to structure your comments differently if another format better fits the manuscript and still communicates your assessment clearly.
-
1
Read the Manuscript Thoroughly
Read the full manuscript at least twice before writing your review. On the first pass, read the abstract, skim each section, and carefully examine the tables and figures to get an overall sense of the work. On the second pass, read thoroughly — assessing methodological rigor, statistical analysis, internal consistency, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. -
2
Assess Originality & Significance
Evaluate whether the work adds meaningfully to the cardiology literature. Is the research question important? Are the findings novel? Could this change clinical practice or guide future research? -
3
Evaluate Methods & Statistical Rigor
Assess the study design, patient selection, endpoint definitions, statistical methodology, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data. Flag any methodological weaknesses clearly and constructively. -
4
Write Your Review
Structure your written comments as: (a) a brief summary of the work (1–2 paragraphs maximum), (b) major concerns, and (c) minor comments. Be specific — reference line numbers, tables, or figures where relevant. Avoid vague or dismissive language. -
5
Submit Your Recommendation
Select one of: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Ensure your written comments are consistent with your recommendation.
Evaluation Criteria
Use the following criteria as a framework when assessing a manuscript. Not all criteria will apply equally to every manuscript type (e.g., imaging pearls vs. RCTs).
| Criterion | What to Assess |
|---|---|
| Originality | Does the manuscript present novel findings or perspectives? Is it clearly differentiated from existing literature? |
| Scientific Rigor | Is the study design appropriate? Are statistical methods sound and correctly applied? Are limitations acknowledged? |
| Clinical Relevance | Will these findings influence clinical practice, guidelines, or future research in cardiology? |
| Clarity of Writing | Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured? Are tables and figures informative and well-labeled? |
| Ethical Compliance | Is there evidence of IRB/ethics board approval where required? Are data sources and conflicts of interest disclosed? |
| References | Are citations current, appropriate, and properly formatted? Are seminal works in the field cited? |
Writing Constructive Comments
The goal of peer review is to help authors improve their work, not to gatekeep. Even when recommending rejection, explain your reasoning clearly so authors can learn from the feedback.
Do:
- Be specific — reference line numbers, figures, or tables
- Suggest how to fix identified problems, not just list them
- Acknowledge the strengths of the manuscript alongside its weaknesses
- Separate major concerns from minor stylistic comments
- Use professional, collegial language throughout
Avoid:
- Vague criticisms without explanation (e.g., "the methods are inadequate")
- Requesting unnecessary additional experiments to delay publication
- Recommending citation of your own work without scientific justification
- Disclosing your identity in the comments to authors
Editor Rating Scale
After you submit a review, the overseeing Associate Editor will rate the quality of your work. These ratings are cumulative toward your co-authorship eligibility.
Ethics & Conflicts of Interest
Peer review integrity is fundamental to the mission of OpenSource: Cardiology. You must disclose and recuse yourself from reviewing any manuscript where a conflict of interest exists.
- You have a personal or professional conflict that could bias your assessment
- You are employed at the same institution as a primary author
- You don't feel that you can appropriately review this manuscript in an unbiased fashion