Reviews for "Journal of the American College of Cardiology"

Motivation: I thought that the peer review process was outstanding. The initial decision came very quickly (only ~35 days after submission) with meticulous reviews written by three reviewers in addition to a statistical methods reviewer. The editors also made very helpful comments about how to frame the study in such a way that would be more applicable to a general cardiology audience. The revisions that were requested by the EIC, associate editor, and the four peer reviewers were extensive, and the revision process was certainly more difficult and time-consuming than writing the initial paper itself. However, I believe that their comments helped us make the paper significantly stronger. In all, I was very pleased with the speed and quality of the reviews. If I ever happen to write another paper with a message that would be a good fit for a flagship journal such as this, I will certainly submit it to JACC again.

Motivation: The quality of the review was shocking. Reviewer 1 had completely misunderstood the results in spite of a clear visual abstract. However, he did understand the methods. Therefore, the extent of their confusion is all the more confusing. I believe that reviewers are harried and short on time. This reflects in the quality of time they spend reviewing papers. I am dismayed by the role of editors at journals. They do not appear to do any sort of gatekeeping. Checking if a reviewers comments are even accurate. There is such limited investment on the part of editors, and since they are the only people in the process of publication who are actually being compensated it is a grim situation. For the apparent standard of the journal, the quality of review is well below average. This will catch up with the journal in a few years.