The Review and Editorial Process at Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes: The Worst System, Except for All the Others.

Abstract

Peer review has long held a sacred position in the scientific process. Yet, for peer review’s participants, including authors, reviewers, and editors, it often feels like sausage making—sufficiently disconcerting that you would rather not think about it even when the outcome might be the best possible. This perspective details the process by which we evaluate articles using peer review and our policies moving forward to recognize peer reviewers for their contribution. Here is how we make the sausage at Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (CQO). After an author submits an article, it is screened by a senior editor who will review the article for appropriateness and relevance to the journal. If the article does not seem to be a good fit for the journal because of its content (eg, a study on coronary physiology), it will be rejected without review. This happens rarely but is a critical step. If the article is a potential fit, it will be assigned to an associate editor with relevant expertise. The associate editor reviews the article and makes an initial decision—if it is clear that the article is not again believed to be a good fit for CQO or is felt to not reach a high enough level of priority, it will be rejected without review, and we target ≈50% of articles in this step. At least 2 editors are involved in these decisions (and often more). This is an important step, and it is critical …