• Provide a brief summary of the contribution
• Identify major concerns affecting validity
• List minor comments for clarity
• Provide a recommendation with rationale

• Study design appropriateness and bias control
• Statistical reporting and outcome transparency
• Imaging protocol clarity and validation
• Ethics approval and participant protections

Use clear, respectful language and cite sections where changes are needed.

• Summary of the main contribution
• Major concerns that affect validity
• Minor comments for clarity and style
• Recommendation with clear rationale

Provide specific references to manuscript sections to support efficient revision.

Structured reviews help authors address feedback efficiently and improve outcomes.

Confidentiality is required. Reviewers should disclose conflicts and decline assignments when necessary.

If additional time is required, notify the editor early to avoid delays in decision making.

Reviewers must not share manuscripts or use unpublished data for personal advantage. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed promptly.

If recommending revision, specify the critical changes required for validity and clarity. If recommending rejection, provide clear and respectful rationale tied to study design or ethics.

Clear recommendations help editors make timely and consistent decisions.

Concise recommendations reduce unnecessary review cycles.

• Evaluate the study on its merits and methods
• Avoid language that is dismissive or speculative
• Declare conflicts and recuse when needed
• Support comments with specific references to the manuscript

Objective reviews build trust in the peer review process.

Highlight whether outcomes are clinically meaningful and whether the study addresses real world cardiovascular needs.

Comments on applicability help editors prioritize high impact evidence.

Note patient impact when possible.