Peer Review Process
The Annals of Clinical Hypertension (ACH) follows a rigorous and transparent single-blind peer review process, designed to uphold the quality, reliability, and ethical integrity of published research. This process ensures that only manuscripts meeting the highest standards of originality, scientific rigor, and relevance to clinical hypertension are accepted for publication.
All manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening, followed by review from at least two independent experts in the field. Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editors, based on reviewer feedback and the journal’s editorial standards.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
- Manuscripts are checked for relevance to the journal’s scope, formatting compliance, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
- Submissions are screened for plagiarism and duplicate publication using similarity detection tools (e.g., iThenticate).
- Manuscripts failing to meet baseline standards may be returned to authors without external review.
2. Reviewer Assignment
Suitable reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and prior reviewing experience. Each manuscript is typically assigned to two or more reviewers to ensure balanced evaluation.
ACH operates a single-blind review system: reviewers remain anonymous, while authors’ identities are disclosed to reviewers. This approach promotes accountability while protecting reviewers from undue influence.
3. Review Timeline
- Reviewers are typically asked to submit reports within 2–4 weeks of invitation acceptance.
- Authors receive initial decisions within 4–6 weeks of submission, depending on reviewer availability.
- Expedited review may be considered for urgent clinical findings or public health relevance.
4. Reviewer Reports
Reviewer feedback must be professional, constructive, and evidence-based. Reports should evaluate originality, methodology, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and overall contribution to the field. Editors synthesize reviewer input when making final decisions.
5. Decision Outcomes
- Accept: Manuscript meets all editorial and peer review standards.
- Minor Revision: Small corrections required; typically re-checked by editors.
- Major Revision: Significant improvements requested; often re-reviewed by original reviewers.
- Reject: Manuscript unsuitable due to methodological flaws, ethical concerns, or lack of originality.
- Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest before accepting assignments.
- Suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research) is referred to the Editor-in-Chief for investigation.
- Editors follow COPE guidelines when handling disputed cases or ethical concerns.
6. Appeals and Re-Review
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, sometimes with consultation from additional independent experts. Revised manuscripts may undergo further peer review before a final decision is reached.
7. Post-Acceptance Checks
- Accepted manuscripts are checked for formatting, references, and compliance with reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA).
- Copyediting, typesetting, and proof review follow acceptance.
- Final versions are assigned DOIs and published online with permanent open access.
The peer review process ensures that ACH publishes reliable, high-quality, and ethically sound research. All participants—authors, reviewers, and editors—must uphold integrity, confidentiality, and professionalism.