Peer Review Policy
The Annals of Clinical Hypertension is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous peer review process. Our peer review system ensures the quality, integrity, and scientific validity of all published research.
All submitted manuscripts undergo a comprehensive peer review process conducted by experts in the relevant field. This process is designed to evaluate the scientific merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field of clinical hypertension research.
Review Process Types
The journal employs different types of peer review depending on the manuscript category:
Reviewers know the identity of authors, but authors do not know reviewer identities. This is our standard review process for most manuscript types.
Neither reviewers nor authors know each other's identities. This may be employed for certain manuscript types or upon special request.
Review Timeline
| Review Stage | Target Timeline | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Initial Assessment | 3-5 business days | Editorial screening for scope and quality |
| Peer Review | 4-6 weeks | External expert review and evaluation |
| Editorial Decision | 1-2 weeks | Final decision communication to authors |
Reviewer Selection Criteria
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and experience in the specific area of the submitted manuscript. Our editorial team maintains a database of qualified reviewers who meet the following criteria:
-
Advanced degree (PhD, MD, or equivalent) in a relevant field
-
Demonstrated expertise in clinical hypertension or related cardiovascular research
-
Recent publication record in peer-reviewed journals
-
No conflicts of interest with the submitted work
-
Availability to complete reviews within the specified timeframe
Review Quality Standards
All reviewers are expected to provide constructive, detailed, and timely reviews that evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Originality, significance, and contribution to the field of clinical hypertension research.
Appropriateness of study design, statistical analysis, and research methodology.
Clarity of writing, organization of content, and adherence to journal guidelines.
Confidentiality and Ethics
All aspects of the peer review process are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscript content with anyone outside the review process. Any suspected ethical issues or research misconduct must be reported immediately to the editorial office.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit a formal appeal within 30 days of notification. Appeals should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and must provide compelling evidence for reconsideration.
For questions about our peer review process, please contact our editorial office at [email protected]. We are committed to maintaining transparency and fairness in all aspects of our review process.