Reviewer Guidelines
The Annals of Clinical Hypertension (ACH) depends on the expertise and dedication of its reviewers to maintain the highest standards of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play a critical role in evaluating the quality, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts. These guidelines provide reviewers with clear expectations to ensure fairness, rigor, and professionalism throughout the peer review process.
Peer review ensures that published research is reliable, methodologically sound, and contributes meaningfully to the scientific literature on hypertension and related fields.
1. Reviewer Responsibilities
- Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback on manuscripts.
- Complete reviews within the agreed timeline (typically 2–4 weeks).
- Decline invitations promptly if unable to review or if expertise is insufficient.
- Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content and peer review correspondence.
2. Ethical Standards for Reviewers
- Confidentiality: Do not share, distribute, or cite manuscripts prior to publication.
- Conflict of Interest: Disclose any personal, professional, or financial conflicts that may bias the review.
- Respect: Provide feedback that is professional, constructive, and respectful in tone.
- Integrity: Report concerns about plagiarism, duplication, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct immediately to the editorial office.
- Originality: Does the manuscript add new insights or knowledge to the field?
- Methodological Rigor: Are study design, data collection, and analysis appropriate and well-described?
- Clarity of Presentation: Is the manuscript logically structured, clearly written, and properly referenced?
- Ethical Compliance: Does the study include proper approvals (e.g., IRB/ethics committee) and informed consent where applicable?
- Relevance: Is the manuscript aligned with the aims and scope of ACH?
3. Structure of Reviewer Reports
Reviewer reports should be detailed yet concise, guiding authors toward improvement. Ideally, reports are structured as follows:
- Summary: Provide a brief overview of the manuscript’s objectives and significance.
- Major Issues: Identify critical methodological or conceptual flaws that must be addressed.
- Minor Issues: Highlight smaller issues (grammar, clarity, formatting) that would improve readability.
- Recommendation: Suggest acceptance, revision (minor/major), or rejection, with justification.
- Reviews must be professional and free of personal criticism.
- Feedback should be actionable, guiding authors toward improvement.
- Reviewers must respect deadlines; late reviews delay scientific communication.
4. Recognition of Reviewers
ACH values the contributions of its reviewers. With consent, reviewers may be acknowledged annually on the journal’s website or via platforms such as Publons and ORCID. Review activity is confidential and will only be disclosed publicly with reviewer permission.
5. Declining Reviews
If reviewers lack the expertise, are unable to meet the timeline, or have conflicts of interest, they must decline the invitation promptly. Suggesting alternative qualified reviewers is encouraged where appropriate.
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. By providing fair, constructive, and timely evaluations, reviewers uphold the credibility of ACH and contribute to advancing the field of clinical hypertension.