{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013041210224308816, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001564945226917058, 'mean_word_length': 5.069620253164557, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A good manuscript review for the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing

As noted in a previous editorial, making a journal successful is a team effort with contributions from authors, editors and reviewers.1 Reviewers play an important role in assuring and improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. The function of a peer review process is considered an integral part of scholarly communication helping to ensure validity, increase accuracy and enhance content prior to publication.2 A peer review should evaluate the novelty, quality and value of the manuscript for the scientific community and the readers of the journal. Reviewers are asked to place the manuscript in proper perspective.3 Peer review requires dedicated time and the effort of reviewers, and their reviews help the editors decide which manuscripts to accept or to reject. Peer reviews also often markedly improve a manuscript. We believe it is timely and useful for the editorial team to define what we regard as a constructive peer review for the European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. A good and constructive peer review for the journal is based on balanced feedback and comprises several components concerning the overall quality, scientific quality and the relevance for the readers. We encourage our reviewers to state their comments in a clear, concise and structured way. More importantly, we expect reviewers to take a constructive view and formulate their reflections on the manuscript in such a way that they might be used to improve it rather than to be unnecessarily critical and harsh and thus ultimately discourage authors to publish their work. At the same time even if a manuscript is clearly of very good or very poor quality, the editors still require a thorough evaluation and cannot merely base their decision on a simple and vague ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ judgment.