For Reviewers
Guide to Reviewers
Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery greatly appreciates the generous contribution of reviewers to the journal’s quality and reputation. The Guide to Reviewers helps our reviewers prepare their reviews, which can be submitted via Editorial Manager. Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery adheres to the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
About the Journal
Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes significant and novel contributions in thoracic surgery. The journal, which is supported by the Japanese Association for Coronary Artery Surgery, aims to facilitate the communication and progress of thoracic surgery worldwide.
Conflict of interest
A conflict of interest exists when there are actual, perceived, or potential circumstances that could influence an editor’s ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances might include having a personal or professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author, or having a financial stake in the work or its publication.
Members of the journal’s Editorial Board undertake to declare any conflicts of interest when handling manuscripts. An editor who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor.
Timing
Efficient peer review and rapid editorial decisions are important to Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Reviews should be completed within 14 days. If you believe that you cannot submit your review by the deadline, please let the Editorial Office know as soon as possible. This allows us to keep authors informed and to make alternate arrangements if necessary.
Confidentiality
As part of their responsibilities, reviewers agree to maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts at all times. By accepting the invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers agree
not to:
- disclose their role in reviewing the manuscript
- reveal their identity to any of the authors of the manuscript
- discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved in the review process
- involve anyone else in the review (for example, a post-doc or Ph.D. student) without first requesting permission from the Editor
- use any data or information from the manuscript in their own work or publications
- use information obtained from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else, or to disadvantage any individual or organization.
Reviewer identity
It is Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery policy to keep reviewers’ names confidential. Journal staff will not disclose a reviewer’s identity
Writing your review
A good review is clear, concise, and constructive. It highlights a manuscript’s contribution to the field and outlines how it might be improved. If a manuscript is not publishable, a good review explains why its flaws are fatal.
Comments to the author(s)
The reviewer’s report has two main functions. First, it provides the Editor with sufficient information to reach a decision on the suitability of the manuscript for publication in Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Setting out clear arguments for or against publication is more helpful than simply stating your recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript. Second, the review provides authors with feedback on their manuscript and, if necessary, advice on how to strengthen it.
Comments to the Editor
Reviewers should submit their reviews to the journal’s Editorial Manager site using the link provided in the Reviewer invitation email. An online Help Guide is available to assist you in using the system. If you encounter any difficulties, please contact the Editorial Office.
Next steps
If you recommended revision, the Editor may assign you to comment on the manuscript when it has been revised.
When the Editor makes a final decision on the manuscript, you will receive a copy of the decision letter along with all reviewers’ comments to the authors. Reviewers’ identities remain confidential unless a reviewer has signed their review.