THE Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound (JCU) currently considers the following article types: Original Articles, Reviews, Commentaries, Letters to the Editor.
|I. When assessing the work, please consider the following points:
- Is the question posed by the authors new and well defined?
- Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to replicate the work?
- Are the data sound and well controlled?
- Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data deposition?
- Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported by the data?
- Do the title and abstract accurately convey what has been found?
- Is the writing acceptable?
|II. Please make your comments as constructive and detailed as possible so that the authors have the opportunity to overcome any serious deficiencies that you find. Please also divide your comments into the following categories:
|Comment to authors|
1. Major Comments (the author must respond to these before a decision on publication can be reached: for example, additional necessary experiments or controls, statistical mistakes, errors in interpretation).
2. Minor Comments (such as missing labels on figures, the wrong use of a term, or spelling errors, which the author can be trusted to correct).
- Please number your comments to the authors.
- Please note that the comments entered here will be passed on to the authors.
|Confidential comments to the Editors|
Please use this only for comments that relate to ethical or policy issues. Do not use it to repeat all or part of the comments in your review for the authors. These comments will not be included in the report passed on to the authors.
|III. After you have completed your report, please answer the following questions regarding the acceptability of the manuscript:
|Given your assessment of the manuscript, what do you recommend should be the next step?|
1. Accept without revision
2. Accept with minor revision
3. Major revision, may be acceptable
4. Major revision, may be rejectable
|Please indicate what your recommendation for the level of priority in terms of several categories:|
2. Scientific importance
3. Experimental design
4. Adequacy of method
5. Brevity and clarity
6. Overall priority for publication
7. Potential, if adequately revised