Cardiology in Review [Neurosurgery Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Cardiology in Review ======

Journal: Cardiology in Review
ISSN: 1061-5377
Publisher: Wolters Kluwer Health
Scope: Narrative reviews, short communications, and select meta-analyses in cardiology
Indexing: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus
Impact Factor: Modest (historically < 2.0)
Audience: Clinical cardiologists, internists, and residents
Format: Bimonthly, peer-reviewed

===== 🧠 1. Scientific Vision or Editorial Drift? =====
While the journal claims to “bring clinically relevant reviews to practicing cardiologists,” its content is dominated by reiterations of known concepts, surface-level summaries, and retrospective synthesis of marginal novelty. The absence of cutting-edge mechanistic studies or disruptive perspectives makes it feel more like a cardiology comfort zone than a catalyst for progress.

===== 🧪 2. Methodological Inconsistency =====
The inclusion of meta-analyses with fewer than 5 studies, often statistically underpowered and narratively overstated, undermines the journal’s credibility. Frequently, the statistical methods are described without transparency, and network meta-analyses are performed without meeting basic transitivity assumptions. In short, it's review-lite dressed in statistical clothing.

===== 🧱 3. Peer Review or Peer Tolerance? =====
There is a palpable lack of methodological rigor in the peer review process. Studies that would be desk-rejected by higher-impact cardiology or internal medicine journals (e.g., Circulation, JACC, EHJ) find a home here. This editorial leniency has turned the journal into a safe haven for academically polite but clinically inert material.

===== 📊 4. Impact, Relevance, and Citation Vacuum =====
Despite indexing in PubMed, the journal remains under-cited, even by its own contributors. Its articles rarely influence clinical guidelines or drive debate in professional circles. It serves more as a CV filler for early-career researchers than a source of clinical guidance.

===== 🔁 5. Academic Echo Chamber Syndrome™ =====
A large fraction of publications recycle well-known epidemiological facts (e.g., Framingham data, HDL-C controversies) without introducing dissenting views or integrating newer omics or AI-based evidence. The journal thus functions more as a repository of cardiological orthodoxy than an engine of intellectual renewal.

===== 🧨 Conclusion =====
Cardiology in Review exemplifies the genre of mid-tier specialty journals that straddle the line between educational utility and scientific stagnation. While it remains a reasonable venue for narrative reviews and modest synthesis papers, it lacks the critical edge, originality, and editorial bravery needed to influence the evolving landscape of cardiovascular medicine.

Verdict: A journal for those who want to publish without provoking, read without rethinking, and cite without consequence.