For Reviewers
Practical guidance for confidential, constructive, and evidence-based review of hypertension and cardiovascular research.
A reviewer recommendation is advisory. The editor remains responsible for the editorial decision and for applying the relevant journal policies.
Accepting or declining an invitation
Accept only when the manuscript is within your expertise, you can review it independently, and you can meet the deadline stated in the invitation.
- Confirm that the subject and methods are within your relevant expertise.
- Declare a competing interest and decline where it could affect independent judgment. Examples include a recent collaboration, shared institution, supervisory relationship, financial interest, personal relationship, or direct academic competition.
- Decline promptly when the deadline cannot be met, or request an extension from the editor as soon as possible.
- Treat the manuscript and all review discussion as confidential. Do not involve students, colleagues, or co-reviewers without editor approval.
Assess the manuscript
Focus on the evidence and explain the basis for your comments.
Question, methods, and analysis
Assess whether the research question, study design, methods, statistical analysis, and interpretation support the conclusions.
Reporting and transparency
Assess clarity of reporting, use of appropriate reporting guidance, data and ethics statements, originality, limitations, and clinical or scientific relevance.
Recommendation categories
Recommend accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject, and explain the scholarly reasons for the recommendation. The editor makes the final decision.
Write useful feedback
Feedback should help authors and editors understand the reasoning behind your assessment.
- Use specific, evidence-based, and respectful comments.
- Separate comments to authors from confidential comments to the editor, and do not include author-identifying or disparaging remarks in either.
- Separate major issues from smaller clarifications where that helps the author respond.
- Do not request unnecessary citations or citations that primarily serve your own work, journal, or network.
Confidentiality and concerns
Do not share, reuse, or discuss confidential manuscript material outside the review process.
Use of material and AI systems
Do not use manuscript information or review discussion for personal, research, or commercial purposes. Do not upload confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence to unapproved generative-AI systems.
Potential concerns
Raise suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, ethical, privacy, data-integrity, or other misconduct concerns with the editor. Do not investigate authors independently.
Recognition and APC discounts
Eligible reviewer discounts of up to 30% are governed by the JHC APC policy. Any recognition arrangement is communicated by the editorial office and does not affect the review or acceptance of a reviewer’s own work.
A clear review helps editors make a considered decision.
Use the editorial policies and the editorial office route for a review-specific concern that requires support.