For Editors
Practical guidance for independent, evidence-led editorial work on hypertension and cardiovascular manuscripts.
This guidance supports independent, evidence-based editorial decisions and responsible handling of potential ethical or research-integrity concerns.
Before handling a manuscript
Establish whether you can assess the manuscript independently and with the necessary subject expertise.
- Confirm that the manuscript falls within your relevant hypertension or cardiovascular expertise.
- Identify any competing interest and step back where it could affect independent judgment.
- Treat the manuscript and editorial discussion as confidential, and do not upload confidential manuscripts, reviews, or editorial correspondence to unapproved AI systems.
Initial screening and desk decisions
Assess the submission promptly for journal fit, completeness, and whether it is suitable for external peer review.
Question and contribution
Consider the research question, originality, relevance to cardiovascular medicine, and the contribution the manuscript could make to the field.
Methods and reporting
Consider whether the methods, analysis, reporting, declarations, and ethical information are sufficient for informed peer review.
Desk rejection
A manuscript may be declined before external review when it is outside scope, incomplete, ethically non-compliant, seriously methodologically inadequate, or unsuitable for peer review. Provide a clear editorial reason where appropriate.
Selecting and managing reviewers
Select reviewers whose knowledge matches the manuscript and who can assess it independently.
- Seek relevant hypertension or cardiovascular subject expertise.
- Consider independence and potential conflicts before inviting a reviewer.
- Normally seek two independent reviewers for a manuscript sent to external review, and invite additional expertise when the methods or topic require it.
- Monitor invitations and reports. When a review is late or inadequate, send a reminder, request clarification, or invite a replacement reviewer as appropriate.
- Share only the information needed for the review process and preserve confidentiality.
Decisions, revisions, and appeals
Editorial decisions must be based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, and applicable journal policies.
Decision categories
Use a clear decision category: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. A reviewer recommendation is advisory; the editor remains responsible for the decision.
Revised manuscripts
Assess the authors’ response and revised files against the decision letter. Return a revision to reviewers when specialist reassessment is needed.
Appeals
Refer a reasoned appeal to the editorial office for independent consideration by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision where practicable.
Editorial independence
APC payments, waiver requests, discounts, and commercial considerations must not influence editorial decisions.
Ethical concerns and editor-authored submissions
Escalate concerns early and protect independent editorial handling.
Ethical or research-integrity concerns
Refer ethical or research-integrity concerns to the editorial office and follow the applicable journal and publisher procedures.
Submissions by editors or board members
An editor or editorial-board member must not handle a manuscript on which they are an author or have a competing interest. It must be assigned to an independent editor and follow the same peer-review and decision standards.
Editorial work serves scholarly judgment, not commercial outcomes.
Use the editorial policies and the editorial office route for a manuscript-specific concern that requires support.