Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
- The submission file is in OpenOffice or Microsoft Word document file format.
- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines, which is found in About the Journal.
A separate title page containing following information is prepared and it should be uploaded as a supplementary file
a) The complete title of the manuscript
b) The name of all the authors
c) The department or institution to which they are affiliated
d) Address for correspondence with telephone numbers, cell phones, e-mail,
e) Source of Funding, Conflict of Interest, and Disclosure(s)
The text is double-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
ERC/IRB Approval Letter:
All the studies must be approved by the relevant Ethics Committee/Institution Review Boards of the respective institutions and approval letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file along with the manuscript.
Informed consent of the patients participating in the study should be undertaken. And should be uploaded as a supplementary file for case reports and case series
Recommend at least two (2) colleagues and mentors who will provide an impartial and timely review. Recommended reviewers should be experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript. Please do not add yourself or co-authors. Please note that the Editors are not obligated to invite any recommended reviewers to assess your manuscript.
Please upload following details of the recommended reviewers as a supplementary file in a separate word document;
a) Full Name, designation, and affiliation
b) Contact number and email address
Authorship Responsibility & Copyright Transfer Form:
Please download the "Authorship Responsibility & Copyright Transfer Form" and upload as a supplementary file along with the manuscript.
A) PUBLICATION DETAILS
The “Pak Heart J: PAKISTAN HEART JOURNAL” is the official journal of PAKISTAN CARDIAC SOCIETY- Pakistan.This IS PEER REVIEWED journal and follows the uniform requirements for Manuscripts submitted to Biomedical journals, updated on www.icmje.org
- Frequency: QUARTERLY (THREE-MONTHLY)
- Published: Both Print and Online edition with free online access to full text
- PUBLISHERS NAME : PAKISTAN CARDIAC SOCIETY
- Average no. of copies per year 3000
- Subscription % -40%.
- Complimentary copies -50%.
- Copies in stock/Library – 10%
- Article Submission charges-Nil
- Article Processing Charges-Nil
- Rs.1000-00 PER COPY
- Rs. 4000 per annum
- USD 100 abroad
- Timelines – Fixed publication dates.
- Technical quality – Good paper/print/format.
- Web address: http://pkheartjournal.com
B: EDITORIAL BOARD
- Chief Editor: SELECTED BY COUNCIL OF PAKISTAN CARDIAC SOCIETY
- Executive Editor: SELECTED BY COUNCIL OF PAKISTAN CARDIAC SOCIETY
- Joint Editor: SELECTED BY COUNCIL OF PAKISTAN CARDIAC SOCIETY
- Managing Editor: ( To be selected by Chief Editor)
- Editors ( To be selected by Chief Editor on recommendation of Managing editor)
- Associate Editors ( To be selected by Chief Editor on recommendation of Managing editor)
- Asstt Editors( To be selected by Chief Editor on recommendation of Managing editor)
- Members Advisory Board ( To be selected by Editorial board )
- NATIONAL 50%
- INTERNATIONAL 50%
- Members Review Pannel ( To be selected by Editorial board)
- NATIONAL 50%
- INTERNATIONAL 50%
- Statistician ( To be selected by Editorial Board)
- Bibilographer ( To be selected by Editorial Board)
- Epidemiologist( To be selected by Editorial Board)
C: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
- The aim is to promote high quality research and disseminate the latest advances among all health care professionals interested in various fields of Cardiology.
Pak Heart J offers a forum for exchange of knowledge among clinicians, research workers and health managers.
Pak Heart J encourages contribution from all fields of Cardiology such as clinical, cardiac imaging, interventional, preventive, electrophysiology, paediatric cardiology and cardiac surgery.
To forecast important issues and trends in Cardiovascular medicine and health care.
To achieve the highest level of ethical medical journalism and to produce a publication that is timely, credible, and enjoyable to read.
To help improve patient management by incorporating the latest knowledge and guidelines into clinical practice.
- 1. Reports of original medical research including observational and analytical studies in various field of cardiovascular medicine
Original clinical observations accompanied by analysis and discussion
- 3. Critical reviews including systematic review and meta-analysis
- 4. Descriptions of evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic methods or procedures
- 5. Epidemiological studies, case reports, special communications, short communications, letters to editors, news etc having positive impact on our national health care provision.
- 6. Special coverage of locally conducted research highlighting the local problems with due contribution of local data to the available international figures, specially regarding diseases most prevalent in developing countries.
E: INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS
The " Pak Heart J: Pakistan Heart Journal " is a quarterly, peer reviewed official journal of Pakistan Cardiac society and follows the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to Biomedical journals as approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors as revised in 1997 published in N Eng J Med 1997; 336:309-15. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has produced and updated the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) Submitted to Biomedical Journals". Detailed information can be downloaded from www.icmje.org.
1: Submission of article:
Pak Heart J is one of the first Pakistani medical journal that provides easy and user friendly ONLINE SUBMISSION OF ARTICLES on its web site. Submissions are allowed only on line.
Visit http://www.pkheartjournal.com and REGISTER yourself as AUTHOR by filling a form.
Log in with your username and password.
Click on AUTHOR on USER HOME page under the heading of PAKISTAN HEART JOURNAL.
Click NEW SUBMISSION and follow the following 5 steps of manuscript submission as per online instructions.
2. Upload Submission
3. Enter Metadata
4. Upload Supplementary Files
Log in > User Home > Author > Submissions > New Submission > step 1 Starting the submission>step 2 Upload submission > step 3 Enter Metadata > step 4 Upload supplementary files > step 5 Confirmation
2: FORMAT REQUIREMENTS
While submitting manuscripts, please carefully follow the instructions given below:-
Summary of Technical Requirements
The journal will accept:-
(a) Original research articles (b) Review articles (c) Case reports (d) Letter to the Editor and (e) Editorials (f) Special communication (g) Short communications
- Review the sequence: title page, abstract and key words, text, acknowledgments, references, tables, legends.
Manuscript should not exceed 20 pages excluding tables and references.
There should be no ore than 25 references in original article and no more than 40 references in a review article.
Include permission to reproduce previously published material or to use illustrations that may identify human subjects.
- Keep copies of everything submitted.
3: MATERIAL FOR PUBLICATION
All manuscripts of original research should contain following sections
a) Title Page
The title page should carry
1) The title of the article, which should be concise, specific and informative. Authors should include all information in the title that will make electronic retrieval of the article both sensitive and specific.
2) Full name of each author, with his or her highest academic degree(s) and institutional affiliation.
3) The name of the department(s) and institution(s) to which the work should be attributed.
4) Disclaimers, if any.
5) The name and address of the author responsible for correspondence about the manuscript.
6) The name and address of the author to whom requests for reprints should be
addressed, source(s) of support in the form of grants, equipment, drugs, or all of these.
7)A short running head or footline of no more than 40 characters (count letters and spaces) at the foot of the title page.
b) Abstract and Key Words
The second page should carry structured abstract of not more than 250 words.The abstract should state the objective: purposes of the study or investigation; methodology: study design, place and duration of study, basic procedures as selection of study subjects or laboratory animals, observational and analytical methods; results: main findings giving specific data and their statistical significance, if possible and conclusion: the principal conclusions. It should emphasize new and important aspects of the study or observations.
Below the abstract authors should provide, and identify as such, 3 to 10 key words or short phrases that will assist indexers in cross-indexing the article and may be published with the abstract. Terms from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) list of Index Medicus should be used. If suitable MeSH-terms are not yet available for recently introduced terms, present terms may be used.
The main manuscript of original article is divided into subsections according to “IMRAD” structure, with the headings Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion.
State the purpose of the article and summarize the rationale for the study or observation. Give only strictly pertinent references and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.
Describe your selection of the observational or experimental subjects (patients or laboratory animals, including controls) clearly. Identify the age, sex, and other important characteristics of the subjects. Because the relevance of such variables as age, sex, and ethnicity to the object of research is not always clear, authors should explicitly justify them when they are included in a study report. The guiding principle should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way. For example, authors should explain why only subjects of certain ages were included or why women were excluded. Authors should avoid terms such as "race," which lacks precise biological meaning, and use alternative descriptors such as "ethnicity" or "ethnic group" instead. Authors should specify carefully what the descriptors mean, and tell exactly how the data were collected (for example, what terms were used in survey forms, whether the data were self-reported or assigned by others, etc.). Identify the methods, apparatus (give the manufacturer's name and address in parentheses), and procedures in sufficient detail to allow other workers to reproduce the results. Give references to established methods, including statistical methods (see below); provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations. Identify precisely all drugs and chemicals used, including generic name(s), dose(s), and route(s) of administration. Reports of randomized clinical trials should present information on all major study elements, including the protocol (study population, interventions or exposures, outcomes, and the rationale for statistical analysis), assignment of interventions (methods of randomization, concealment of allocation to treatment groups), and the method of masking (blinding). Authors submitting review manuscripts should include a section describing the methods used for locating, selecting, extracting, and synthesizing data. These methods should also be summarized in the abstract.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 1983. Do not use patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material. When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institution's or a national research council's guide for, or any national law on, the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as the use of P values, which fails to convey important quantitative information. Discuss the eligibility of experimental subjects. Give details about randomization. Describe the methods for and success of any blinding of observations. Report complications of treatment. Give numbers of observations. Report losses to observation (such as dropouts from a clinical trial). References for the design of the study and statistical methods should be to standard works when possible (with pages stated) rather than to papers in which the designs or methods were originally reported. Specify any general-use computer programs used. Put a general description of methods in the Methods section. When data are summarized in the Results section, specify the statistical methods used to analyze them. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess its support. Use graphs as an alternative to tables with many entries; do not duplicate data in graphs and tables. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as "random" (which implies a randomizing device), "normal," "significant," "correlations," and "sample." Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols.
Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations. Do notrepeat in the text all the data in the tables or illustrations; emphasize or summarize only important observations.
Emphasize the new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions that follow from them. Do not repeat in detail data or other material given in the Introduction or the Results section. Include in the Discussion section the implications of the findings and their limitations, including implications for future research. Relate the observations to other relevant studies. Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not completely supported by the data. In particular, authors should avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless their manuscript includes economic data and analyses. Avoid claiming priority and alluding to work that has not been completed. State new hypotheses when warranted, but clearly label them as such. Recommendations, when appropriate, may be included.
List all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under a heading such as "clinical investigators" or "participating investigators," and their function or contribution should be described for example, "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," or "provided and cared for study patients." Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, all persons must have given written permission to be acknowledged.
j) Contribution of author
The contribution of each author in the manuscript should also be mentioned.
References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text. Identify references in text, tables, and legends by Arabic numerals in parentheses. References cited only in tables or figure legends should be numbered in accordance with the sequence established by the first identification in the text of the particular table or figure. Use the style of the examples below, which are based on the formats used by the NLM in Index Medicus. The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in Index Medicus. Consult the List of Journals Indexed in Index Medicus, published annually as a separate publication by the library and as a list in the January issue of Index Medicus. The list can also be obtained through the library's web site Avoid using abstracts as references. References to papers accepted but not yet published should be designated as "in press" or "forthcoming"; authors should obtain written permission to cite such papers as well as verification that they have been accepted for publication. Information from manuscripts submitted but not accepted should be cited in the text as "unpublished observations" with written permission from the source. Avoid citing a "personal communication" unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. For scientific articles, authors should obtain written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of a personal communication. The references must be verified by the author(s) against the original documents. The Uniform Requirements style (the Vancouver style) is based largely on an ANSI standard style adapted by the NLM for its databases. Notes have been added where Vancouver style differs from the style now used by NLM.
Articles in Journals
1.Standard journal article List the first six authors followed by et al. Khan WA, Pervez K, Shah KA. Doppler patterns in cardiac tamponade. JPMI 1998;11: 153- More than six authors: Parkin DM, Clayton D, Black RJ, Masuyer E, Friedl HP, Ivanov E, et al. Childhood leukaemia in Europe after Chernobyl: 5 year follow-up. Br J Cancer 1996;73: 1006-12.
2. Organization as authorThe Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand. Clinical exercise stress testing. Safety and performance guidelines. Med J Aust 1996; 164: 282-4.
3. No author given Cancer in South Africa [editorial]. S Afr Med J 1994;84:15.
4. Article not in English (Note: NLM translates the title to English, encloses the translation in square brackets, and adds an abbreviated language designator.) Ryder TE, Haukeland EA, Solhaug JH. Bilateral infrapatellar seneruptur hostidligere frisk kvinne. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 1996;116:41-2.
5. Issue with no volume Turan I, Wredmark T, Fellander-Tsai L. Arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop 1995;(320):110-4.
6. No issue or volume Browell DA, Lennard TW. Immunologic status of the cancer patient and the effects of blood transfusion on antitumor responses. Curr Opin Gen Surg 1993: 325-33.7.
7.Article containing retraction Garey CE, Schwarzman AL, Rise ML, Seyfried TN. Ceruloplasmin gene defect associated with epilepsy in EL mice [retraction of Garey CE, Schwarzman AL, Rise ML, Seyfried TN. In: Nat Genet 1994;6:426-31]. Nat Genet 1995;11:104.
8 . Article with published erratum Hamlin JA, Kahn AM. Herniography in symptomatic patients following inguinal hernia repair [published erratum appears in West J Med 1995;162:278]. West J Med 1995;162:28-31.
Books and Other Monographs
9. Personal author(s) Ringsven MK, Bond D. Gerontology and leadership skills for nurses. 2nd ed. Albany
(NY): Delmar Publishers; 1996.
10. Editor(s), compiler(s) as author Norman IJ, Redfern SJ, editors. Mental health care for elderly people. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996.
11. Organization as author and publisher Institute of Medicine (US). Looking at the future of the Medicaid program. Washington: The Institute; 1992.
12. Chapter in a book (Note: Previous Vancouver style had a colon rather than a p before pagination.) Phillips SJ, Whisnant JP. Hypertension and stroke. In: Laragh JH, Brenner BM, editors. Hypertension: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press;1995. p. 465-78.
13.Conference proceedings Kimura J, Shibasaki H, editors. Recent advances in clinical neurophysiology. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of EMG and Clinical Neurophysiology; 1995 Oct 15-19; Kyoto, Japan. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1996.
14. Scientific or technical report Issued by funding/sponsoring agency: Smith P, Golladay K. Payment for durable medical equipment billed during skilled nursing facility stays. Final report. Dallas (TX): Dept. of Health and Human Services (US), Office of Evaluation and Inspections; 1994 Oct. Report No.: HHSIGOEI69200860. Issued by performing agency: Field MJ, Tranquada RE, Feasley JC, editors. Health services research: work force and educational issues. Washington: National Academy Press; 1995. Contract No.: AHCPR282942008. Sponsored by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
l) Tables,Graphs, Illustrations and legends
Tables and graphs should be simple. Give Roman numerals in the order of their mention in the text. Provide a brief title for each. They should have a title and be numbered consecutively in the order they are mentioned in the text. Abbreviations should be defined in a double-spaced footnote at the end of the table. If any material in a table or a table itself has been taken from previously copyrighted material, a double spaced footnote must give full credit to the original source and permission of the author and publisher must be obtained. Send letters of permission to the Editor with the manuscript. Figures should be professionally drawn. Free hand lettering is unacceptable. Illustration can be photographed (Black and White glossy prints) and numbered and scanned for softcopy. If photographs of persons are to be used, either take permission from the person or make the picture unidentifiable. Black and White images (photographs) should be supplied as TIFF, JPEG, BMP, PSD and CDR files, to a minimum of 300 dpi.
m) Conflict of Interest Notification Page
Authors should declare any potential conflict of interest and any financial support for the study may be disclosed as well.
n) Short Reports
Short Reports should be limited to three type written pages on current research, a short introduction, methodology and results should be written under the same heading followed by brief comments and six to ten reference.
o) Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor are considered for publication (subject to editing and abridgment) provided they do not contain material that has been submitted or published elsewhere. The letter must be typewritten and double-spaced. Its text, not including reference, must not exceed 250 words if it is in reference to a recent journal article, or 400 words in all other cases (please provide a word count). It must have no more than five references and one figure or table. Letters referring to a recent journal article must be received within four weeks of its publication. Please include your full address, telephone number, fax number an e-mail address.
Authors should take help from following guidelines in writing manuscripts
Type of study
CONSORT (up dated CONSORT 2010)
randomized controlled trials
studies of diagnostic accuracy
systematic reviews and meta-analyses
observational studies in epidemiology
meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology
All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. An "author" is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. To qualify as an author one should 1) have made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) have given final approval of the version to be published. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
F: MANUSCRIPT EVALUATION
Pak Heart J: Pakistan Heart Journal is a quarterly peer reviewed journal published by Pakistan Cardiac Society.
Every new manuscript submitted to Pak Heart J is immediately assessed by an editor for an initial inspection (internal peer review).
An article with publication potential is sent to two or three external peer reviewers to evaluate the suitability of the article for publication based on its quality, novelty, and relevance for publication.
A time frame of maximum 4 weeks will be given for a reviewer to go through a manuscript and send suggestions to the editor. Failing which a reminder will be issued from the editor with additional 2 weeks time for review to be completed.
If a reviewer is unable to meet the time frame agreed upon or he declines to review the manuscript, the manuscript will be sent to another reviewer.
The editor may establish a system for rapid review of especially important manuscripts. This may include review only by editors or asking reviewers to complete their evaluations within a shorter period of time than is allowed routinely. Authors who seek rapid review should explain why their manuscripts merit such review.
Reviewers are advisors to authors and editors. The editor may ask reviewers to make recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, and should pay attention to the recommendations, but the editorial board shall make the final decision.
The editorial board may reject manuscripts without outside review, if the subject matter is outside the purview of the journal, a manuscript on the same topic is just about to be published, the quality of the manuscript is poor, or criteria for the submission of manuscripts are not met.
G: RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS:
Pak Heart J will follow the WAME (World Association of Medical Editors) guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of the editors.
Editors are responsible to readers, and should learn about their needs and interests.
Editors are responsible for safeguarding the rights of study subjects and animals.
Editors are responsible for the editorial content of the journal; that is, the subject matter and types of articles and the actual content of the articles that are published in the journal.
Editors are responsible for establishing the policies for authorship and submission of manuscripts to the journal.
Editors are responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for the constructive, prompt evaluation of manuscripts, whether accepted for publication or not.
Editors are responsible to authors for maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of the authors’ work while that work is being evaluated for publication.
Editors must be willing to make decisions and stand behind them, but be willing to reconsider their decisions when appropriate.
Editors should work to improve not only the quality of manuscripts but also the quality of research in the field.
Editors must be prepared to deal with error and allegations of misbehavior.
Editors should maintain editorial independence and work to ensure that authors have editorial freedom.
Editors must not have personal, financial, or other relationships linked in any way to any of their responsibilities as an editor.
Editors should plan for the future of their journals.
The editor should know the publisher’s policies about advertising. The editorial process should be conducted independently of the procurement of advertisements. The editorial content of the journal should be separated from the advertising content to the greatest extent possible in the published journal, whether printed or electronic.
H: REVIEWERS: THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES, SELECTION, AND REWARDS
Pak Heart J is aiming to set a panel of peer-reviewers with diversity in knowledge, viewpoint and expertise in cardiovascular medicine and extensive experience as faculty members, researchers, and published authors.
A. RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
The first responsibility of reviewers is to evaluate manuscripts critically but constructively and to prepare detailed comments about the research and the manuscript to help authors improve their work. The reviewers have to assess the manuscript according to the reviewers proforma sent to each reviewer along with the manuscript. The evaluation should include
assessments of the originality and importance of the research;
the design of the study;
the methods of study, including analytic and statistical methods;
the presentation of the results;
possible confounding; the strength of the conclusions; and
the overall quality of the manuscript.
II. The second responsibility is to make recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in that journal. Reviewers may be asked to write some narrative comments about the manuscript that support their recommendation to the editor regarding acceptance or rejection. They also can be asked to grade some characteristics of the manuscript, such as originality, quality, accuracy, readability and interest to readers, or to complete detailed questionnaires about these qualities and even assign a priority score.
III. Reviewers should declare to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review, and in most instances when such conflicts exist should decline to review the manuscript.
IV. Other responsibilities of reviewers include treating the manuscript as a confidential document and completing the review promptly. Reviewers should not show the manuscript to anyone else without the express consent of the editor.
V. Reviewers should not make derogatory comments about the manuscript in their comments for the authors. If reviewers do make such comments, the editor may choose to edit the comments or even withhold all the reviewer’s comments from the authors.
VI. Reviewers must not make any use of the work described in the manuscript.
Reviewers should not communicate directly with authors or even identify themselves to authors, except by signing their reviews.
The editor should provide guidance to the reviewers, particularly new reviewers, regarding how the editor wishes the reviewers to evaluate the manuscript and how the reviewers should meet their dual responsibility of providing constructive comments for the author and advice to the editor.
Reviewers should meet the agreed-upon deadline (usually 4 weeks) for manuscript review and should respond to the reminders if sent any.
B. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF REVIEWERS
The editor will establish a reviewer database that includes information about the expertise of each reviewer as well as addresses and other contact information.
Fifty percent of reviewers will be from Pakistan and fifty percent will be selected from abroad.
The editor may identify potential reviewers on the basis of personal knowledge of the topic or from among the authors of references in the manuscript, the membership of the society that publishes the journal, or computer searches of databases such as PubMed, Medline or by asking for names from reviewers who decline to review the manuscript (see below).
Authors may be asked to suggest reviewers for their manuscript. The editor may choose to use one or more of these reviewers, but is under no obligation to do so. Request of an author for not including certain persons among reviewers will not be binding on the editor.
The editor should ask for the consent of reviewers before submitting the article of review. The editor may ask for the names of others who might review the manuscript should the person initially contacted decline.
The editor is responsible for keeping track of reviewers, and taking steps to make sure reviews are completed in a timely manner. Each peer review is rated by the editor assigned to the manuscript and stored with the reviewer’s profile in the Rapid Review reviewer database. This rating becomes part of the reviewing history of each peer reviewer, and can be viewed by the editors as they select potential reviewers for future manuscripts. The reviewer database also contains information on the reviewers’ areas of expertise; the number of previous invitations to review and number accepted; dates of submitted reviews, and days taken to produce reviews. Reviewers who consistently decline invitations or who write brief unhelpful reviews are eventually removed from the database.
To avoid overloading reviewers, each reviewer will be asked to evaluate no more than one manuscript per month.
If a reviewer does not complete a review on a timely basis, the editor should proceed with evaluation of the manuscript. He can make a decision to accept or reject the manuscript based on the comments and recommendations of another reviewer(s) or his own evaluation of the manuscript, or by seeking additional review.
C. REWARDING REVIEWERS.
- Each reviewer may be rewarded by being publicly thanked for reviewing in the journal each year and shall be given free copies of journal.
I: DECISION MAKING AND COMMUNICATION TO AUTHORS
The editorial board makes all decisions about the manuscript (accept, invite a revision, or reject) based on recommendations of reviewers, editorial board members, and other external factors.
What considerations should enter into the decision? These may include the comments and recommendations of the reviewers, the availability of space, and—most important—the judgment of the editor(s) regarding the suitability of the manuscript for the journal and the value and interest of the manuscript to the journal’s readers.
The editor may always seek additional review and advice if required.
Decisions are communicated to authors by the editor. This means that the editor may need to provide explanations for the decision independent of the comments of the reviewers that are to be sent to the authors.
Decisions to reject a manuscript may be based on scientific weakness (poor research design, inappropriate methods of study), lack of originality, lack of importance and interest to readers, or simply lack of space. The editor will explain to authors the reasons for decisions to reject manuscripts. This is particularly important when the editor rejects a manuscript but the tone of the comments of the reviewers that will be sent to the authors is favorable.
The editor should actively encourage revision of manuscripts thought to be potentially acceptable. When an editor seeks revision of a manuscript, he should make clear which revisions are essential, and which are optional. If the comments of the reviewers are contradictory, the editor must decide and tell the authors which comments the authors should follow. Editors may add their own comments and suggestions for revision, and they (or some person in the editorial office designated by the editor) are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts meet the journal’s policies regarding length and style.
In general, manuscripts that are potentially acceptable but need very major revision or additional data should be rejected, but the editor can encourage resubmission. When this is done, the editor should explain precisely what is needed to make the manuscript acceptable. It is a disservice to authors to request revision and then later reject the manuscript. As an alternative, the editor may choose to work closely with the authors to make the manuscript acceptable for publication.
The editor should not make decisions regarding manuscripts about which he may have a conflict of interest, for example manuscripts submitted by members of the editor’s own institution or people who have been collaborators of the editor in the past. In this instance, the manuscript should be handled by an assistant editor or preferably a person outside of the editorial office who is given full power to select reviewers and make decisions regarding acceptance or rejection. The same policy should be followed if the editor himself submits a manuscript - other than an editorial - to his journal, which he should only rarely.
Revised manuscripts should be evaluated by editors, to determine if the revisions are satisfactory, and not returned to reviewers. An exception might be when the revised manuscript includes changes that may have introduced important new shortcomings about which the editor needs advice from one or more of the original reviewers. Revised manuscripts should not be sent to new reviewers.
Editors should immediately reject a resubmitted manuscript that was previously rejected and has not been revised.
All articles submitted to Pak Heart J are subjected to plagiarism testing. Pak Heart J follows the standard definition and description of plagiarism (http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/Index.html) and endorses ICMJE and Higher Education Commission policies regarding plagiarism available on www.icmje.org and www.hec.gov.pk. All articles will be submitted to www.turnitin.com and final decision will be made by the editorial board.
Intellectual contribution and originality of every article is to be defined by the authors and this is the responsibility of authors to be aware of various forms of plagiarism like plagiarism of ideas, text, paraphrasing, self plagiarism including redundant/duplicate publication, salami slicing( data fragmentation) and text recycling etc. Ignorance regarding plagiarism and its various forms will not be considered as excuse.
Any manuscript submitted for publication or a manuscript accepted for publication or even an article that has already been published in the journal is found to be plagiarized, the matter will be forwarded to disciplinary committee of Pak Heart J comprising of chief editor, managing editor and associate and assistant editor.
Disciplinary committee will immediately stop the further processing/ publication of the article and will ask for an explanation from the authors. The corresponding author will be required to respond with an explanation within 30 days of receiving the letter from the editor.
In case an acceptable explanation is provided by the author(s), the disciplinary committee may recommend appropriate changes after which the review process for the submitted manuscript may commence.
In case of non response in the stipulated time or unsatisfactory explanation, the disciplinary committee will decide regarding the fate of the article and authors including
Rejection of the manuscript,
Withdrawn of already published article (as the case may be)
Debarment of the authors(s) from further publication in the Pak Heart J for one year or permanent depending upon the nature of offence.
The author will be on watch.
HEC, PMDC and author’s institute will be notified for information and possible action
In case of multiple submissions, other editors will also be informed. The author(s) will have to provide documentary proof of retraction from publication, if such a defence is pleaded.
Those claiming intellectual/idea or data theft of an article must provide documentary proof in their claim.
K: POST-PUBLICATION PEER REVIEW
After an article is published, the peer review process continues with critical appraisal by readers.We welcome correspondence in the form of “letters to the editor,” which must be submitted before the publication of next issue.
L: PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION
The " Pak Heart J:Pakistan Heart Journal is published on controlled circulation basis and distributed among the faculty of all medical colleges and tertiary referral centres, main libraries and private clinics throughout Pakistan and abroad. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, except for internal or personal use, without the prior permission of the publisher. The publisher and the member of the editorial board cannot be held responsible for errors or for any consequences arising form the use of the information contained in this journal. The " Pak Heart J: Pakistan Heart Journal is published three monthly composed and printed at Spinzer Press Peshawar.
Pakistan Heart Journal,
Pakistan Cardiac Society, Karachi, Pakistan.
Images in cardiology* / interventional cardiology* / Electrophysiology * / Pediatric Cardiology*
Case reports published should have excellent images of rare or typical cardiac presentation. Image modalities include photography, echocardiography, computed tomography, Cardiac MRI and Pathology specimen.
Presentation: Maximum word count 300 (no abstract required) up to 4 authors can include a maximum of 2 figures up to 3 references. Echocardiology Cardiac MRI clips can be sent with fixed pictures. Running images will be displayed on Pakistan Heart Journal Website.
- Author information
- Case Description
- Authors contribution
- Learning points
- Four Stem questions with answer if feasible.
* Single case supported by clinical details and three multiple choice questions with explanation. The images should be high quality and interest to cardiology presentation.
The format should be as under:
- Clinical Vignette (200 words)
- Single figure.
- Three multiple choice questions focused around case interpretation and further management. Each question should have five answers of which one is correct. All of the above and none of the above should be avoided.
- Explanation for correct answers to each question should be provided (50-100 words)
- References (Four maximum)
- Additional images / videos should be provided as supplementary materials