Policy: Journal of Atrial Fibrillation (JAFIB) follows an initial screening where each submission is assessed by the editors for originality, specifically covering cardiac arrhythmia and fulfillment of submission guidelines. Manuscripts which are suitable for review at least two independent referees chosen by the Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors. Following the peer review the reports from the reviewers are then considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who will make the final decision.
Confidentiality: The details of the authors will be available to the reviewers, however the reviewer details will not be known to the authors. The existence and content of a manuscript under review is kept confidential within the JAFIB editorial team and the referees. All referees are requested to abide by that confidentiality protocol.
Procedure: Manuscripts are submitted via JAFIB online submission portal. Once the manuscript is complete and submitted the corresponding author will receive an email confirmation. The manuscript are then screened for suitability by the Editors. If a particular manuscript fails the screening process authors will be informed on the decision to allow them to submit to other journals. If the paper is considered to be suitable, two independent reviewers are chosen by the Editor-in-Chief and Section Editors. Authors can suggest reviewers to include or exclude for the peer-review process and the exclusion options are strictly followed, while the inclusion options are considered in the selection of reviewers.

The following figure outlines the review process, each step is indicated by the red circle, and the lower section shows the number of days between each step.

An email is sent to each reviewers requesting them to provide review, and they have to either accept or reject the request within 7 working days. If any reviewer declines the review request alternative reviewers will be contacted. Each referee is given a deadline (2-3 weeks) for return of their review report. If the deadline for review is not fulfilled email and phone contact is made with the referees to send a report. If no response in 2 weeks after deadline a new reviewer will be chosen. Review report includes separate sections for authors, editors and a decision for each reviewer.
The reports from the reviewers can be submitted via the reviewer central or by email to the section editor. Once the reports from the referees are available they are available electronically for the Editor-in-Chief, who may occasionally seek additional specialist advice if needed. The Editor-in-Chief then writes to the author(s) by email enclosing the reports from the referees and the final decision taken.

This decision will be one of four options:

Decision A : Acceptance without further modification
Decision B : Provisional acceptance with modifications as per the reports from the referees
Decision C : Possible acceptance if substantial changes are made (no commitment of acceptance)
Decision D : Rejection

Decision A: Authors are informed via email and the manuscript is scheduled for proof and publication.

Decision B: Authors are sent the summary of reviewer comments by email and asked to submit a revised manuscript within 2-4 weeks depending on the extent of reviewer comments. Authors have to submit the revised manuscript with a covering letter addressing individual reviewer comments.

Decision C: Authors are sent the summary of suggested changes by email and asked to consider submitting a revised manuscript within 4-6 weeks. Authors have to submit the revised manuscript with a covering letter addressing individual reviewer comments.

Decision D: Authors are informed of the editorial board's decision including detailed comments and reasons for rejection.

Pre-publication Proofs : Pre-publication proofs are sent to authors for their review at least 3 weeks before the publication date. Only changes to resolution of images, alignment and formatting are allowed at this stage. Once approved by authors the manuscript will be available online via open access.