Writing review reports:
All submissions to Azerbaijan Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery are subject to double-blind peer review. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. We believe that the most effective way to obtain honest and unbiased evaluations of manuscripts is to keep the identities of reviewers and authors anonymous. This requires that reviewers and authors do not communicate directly with each other.
Please note:
Peer review is a confidential process. If you wish to ask a colleague to review this manuscript, you must contact us first.
Peer review comments can only be accepted online through our peer review system. We do not accept annotated or modified downloaded draft files in any form.
Your review should provide an objective, critical assessment of the manuscript in its broadest sense.
Before accepting to review for Azerbaijan Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, please consider the following:
You must submit your review through our manuscript tracking system by logging into Manuscript Review and using the structured peer review form provided.
Are you aware of the ethical guidelines for reviewers? Refer to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Can you complete the review within the allocated time? Reviewers are required to submit their comments within 15 days of accepting the invitation to review. If you anticipate difficulty meeting the deadline, please contact the editorial team for an extension.
Research the Journal:
Visit the journal homepage to get an idea of the journal's content and style. This will help you determine if the manuscript is suitable for the journal.
Key Factors to Consider:
The originality, presentation, and relevance of the manuscript’s topic to the journal’s readership.
The accuracy of the methodology.
Assess the main strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and, if relevant, consider the statistical power of the study.
First read-through:
Is the authors' intent and direction of the paper clear?
Is this an original research article or another type of manuscript? How does this affect your review?
What is the contribution of the manuscript to the field?
Is the manuscript original?
Is the overall study design and approach appropriate?
Are you concerned about the language? Are revisions needed to make it possible to review?
Detailed Comments:
Your review should provide an objective, critical assessment of the manuscript's technical aspects. Comments should offer constructive suggestions, clarify ambiguous points, and request further details if needed.
Provide suggestions on how the author can improve the clarity, conciseness, and quality of the presentation.
Evaluate whether the manuscript’s subject matter is interesting enough to justify its length. If you recommend shortening, indicate specific areas for reduction.
While it is not the reviewer’s job to edit the manuscript for English, suggesting improvements to the language can be helpful if technical meaning is unclear.
Clearly state all significant revisions needed. Mention minor corrections if they enhance the clarity and purpose of the manuscript.
Reviewers may not agree with the authors’ views but should allow these views if they are supported by evidence.
Remember that authors appreciate constructive criticism as well as positive feedback.
Being critical while sensitive to the author’s efforts is key. Comments should be carefully phrased to ensure the author understands what actions are needed to improve their manuscript. Avoid generalized or vague statements and irrelevant or non-constructive negative comments.
If you suspect any form of misconduct, such as plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or data fabrication, report these in the Confidential Comments to the Editor section.
Make a Recommendation:
After evaluating the manuscript, you need to make a recommendation regarding its suitability for publication.
Publishable without revision (No Revision)
Publishable after minor revisions (Minor Revision)
Publishable only after major revisions (Major Revision)
Major revision required (Major Revision)
Reject
Final Checks – Before Submitting Your Report:
Have you provided constructive criticism as well as positive feedback?
Are your concerns specific and supported by examples where possible?
Have you referenced page/line numbers in the manuscript to help authors locate the issues?
Is your feedback constructive and focused on the research?
If you were the author, would you understand what actions to take to improve the manuscript?
If you were the editor, would your comments be detailed enough to help you make a decision?
Have you checked your report for spelling and grammar?
Have you placed your comments in the correct sections in the online system – ensuring confidential comments to the editor are in the right place – and answered all questions?