Guide to Reviewers

The Journal of Transcatheter Valve Therapies (JTVT) is extremely grateful to all our reviewers for contributing their time, effort and expertise to the journal’s peer review process. This Guide to Reviewers provides advice for reviewers on preparing and submitting their reviews. The primary role of our reviewers is to advise the editors in their decision making.

About the journal

Aims and Scope

The Journal of Transcatheter Valve Therapies (JTVT) is an Open Access journal that aims to provide and share the latest information in transcatheter valve therapies and related fields. The journal publishes a range of peer-reviewed article types that explore comprehensive and specific aspects of this emerging field, as well as important reviews and methods. Supported by the Japan Transcatheter Valve Therapies society and published continuously online, the journal has a global audience of cardiac specialists that use the journal’s content to remain informed and up-to-date and therefore improve patient outcomes.

Conflict of interest

A robust peer review process relies on reviewer feedback that is both fair and objective. If there are actual, perceived or potential circumstances that could influence a reviewer’s ability to act impartially, a conflict of interest exists.

The Editor will try to avoid conflicts of interest when inviting reviewers to assess a manuscript. However, it can often be difficult or impossible to identify potential bias. If you have been invited to review a manuscript, please consider if your ability to judge it fairly and objectively might be influenced by circumstances such as:

  • having a personal relationship with any of the authors
  • having worked or published with any of the authors in the past 3 years
  • having a financial interest in the work or the outcome of the manuscript
  • working on the same topic or in direct competition with any of the authors
  • having seen or commented on drafts of the manuscript.

A conflict of interest may not be apparent until after you have accepted the invitation to review and have begun your assessment of the manuscript. If, at any time during the review process, you believe you may have a conflict of interest with a manuscript you are reviewing, please contact the Editorial Office immediately.

Timing

JTVT aims to provide authors with efficient peer review and rapid editorial decisions. We ask reviewers to complete their reviews within 14 days. Please let the Editorial Office know as soon as possible if you expect your review to be delayed. This helps us to keep authors informed and to make alternative arrangements if necessary.

Confidentiality

Unpublished manuscripts

Reviewers should treat all manuscripts confidentially throughout the peer review process. The journal asks reviewers to follow these guidelines at all times:

  • Do not disclose your role in reviewing the manuscript.
  • Do not discuss the manuscript with anyone who is not directly involved in the peer review process.
  • Do not use any information from an unpublished manuscript in your own research or publications.
  • Do not cite any unpublished manuscripts or their contents.
  • Do not reveal your identity to the authors during the peer review process without first obtaining the Editor’s approval.
  • Check with the Editor before consulting colleagues (either within or outside your own research group) about the manuscript, to ensure that you do not inadvertently violate confidentiality or impartiality.

Reviewer identity

JTVT maintains the confidentiality of reviewers’ identities at all times. A reviewer’s name will be disclosed by journal staff only if the reviewer specifically asks for such disclosure.

Writing your review

A good review is concise yet comprehensive. It serves two main purposes: to provide the Editor with enough information to determine whether the manuscript should be published in the journal; and to give authors feedback on their manuscript and, if necessary, advice on how to improve it.

Reviews are separated into three parts in the online submission system (iap cloud): multiple-choice questions, comments to the author(s), and comments to the Editor.

Multiple-choice questions

These questions concern your overall impressions of the manuscript, such as your recommendation on its suitability for publication. The answers to these questions are shared only with the Editor, not the author(s).

Comments to the author(s)
Ideally, your review should include:

  • a short summary of the manuscript and its findings
  • a general overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses
  • numbered comments that address specific criticisms about the manuscript.

When preparing your comments, consider the following aspects of the manuscript:

  • Relevance: Does the work fit the journal’s scope and readership?
  • Originality and significance: Is the work new and important?
  • Scientific quality: Are the approach, methods, design and analysis all sound?
  • Written quality: Is the manuscript clearly presented?

The following questions may help you to assess each part of the manuscript:

  • Title
    • Does the Title accurately reflect the manuscript’s main findings?
  • Abstract
    • Does the Abstract adequately describe the background or context of the work, the objectives of the research project, the methods used, the main findings, and their relevance?
  • Introduction
    • Does the Introduction provide adequate background and context for the work?
    • Have the authors presented their hypotheses clearly?
  • Materials and Methods
    • Did the authors use appropriate methods and statistical analyses?
    • Have the authors described the methods in enough detail to allow others to replicate them?
    • Have the authors clearly explained and/or mitigated any caveats or limitations in their approach?
    • In the case of human/animal experimentation, have the authors adhered to established codes of practice and ethics?
  • Results
    • Have the authors explained their results clearly and adequately?
    • Is each table and figure necessary? Are any missing?
    • Are the tables and figures complete and easy to interpret?
  • Conclusions
    • Are the Conclusions supported by the results?
    • Have the authors considered any alternative explanations for their results?
    • Have the authors made unsupported claims or inappropriate speculations?
  • General
    • Are all cited references relevant and necessary? Has any relevant literature been omitted?
    • Is the manuscript clearly written?
    • Have the authors adhered to established codes of publication ethics?
    • Are there any errors in fact, methodology, analyses or interpretations?
    • Has the manuscript been published previously, in part or in whole, in any language?

When writing critical comments, make sure they are constructive and are aimed at the research, not the researchers. If you make assertions of fact, provide supporting evidence.

You should avoid making a recommendation for publication or otherwise in your comments to the author(s), as the Editor’s decision may be based on conflicting reviews.

Comments to the Editor

Helpful comments to the Editor include:

  • a summary of your comments to the author(s), to help the Editor quickly assess your review.
  • your recommendation regarding publication in the journal. Setting out clear arguments for or against publication is more helpful than simply stating your recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript.
  • if it is not suitable for publication, any advice on how the manuscript could be improved to encourage resubmission in the future.
  • any concerns you may have about potential ethical violations or potential misconduct in either the research or the manuscript.

Comments to the Editor are kept confidential and are not shared with the author(s).

Submitting your review

Submit your review to the journal using the link provided in the Editor’s invitation email or by logging in to your account on the journal’s manuscript submission and peer review Website:https://iap-jp.org/jtvt/journal_e/. If you encounter any difficulties, please contact the Editorial Office.

Next steps

Keep a copy of your review. If you recommended revision, the Editor may invite you to comment on the manuscript when it has been revised.

When the Editor makes a final decision on the manuscript, you will receive a copy of the decision letter along with all reviewers’ comments to the authors. Reviewers’ identities remain confidential unless a reviewer has signed their review.

Contact details

For editorial, production, or other inquiries,
and to contact the Editor-in-Chief, please contact the Editorial Office.

JTVT Editorial Office
International Academic Publishing Co., Ltd.
332-6 Yamabuki-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-0801, JAPAN
TEL: +81-3-6824-9399
Email: jtvt-edit[at]bunken.co.jp
(Please replace [at] with @)