Rejected from JACC? Similar Cardiology Journals to Submit to Next

The Journal of the American College of Cardiology receives a very large volume of submissions, and a decline there is a common experience even for well-run cardiology studies. Many of those declines are quick. An editor reads the abstract, decides the question is too incremental for the flagship readership or that the effect is too small to change how clinicians practise, and the decision arrives in days rather than months. Authors tend to read speed as a judgement on the science. More often it is a judgement on fit.

If you are searching for journals like JACC, the useful question is not which title sits one notch lower on a reputation ladder. It is which journal would plausibly want this particular paper, reviewed by people who would read it closely. This guide covers how to read the decision, then walks through a set of realistic next targets. I have not ranked them by any number. Where a detail such as word limits, article types or review timelines varies between secondary sources, I say so, and I send you to the journal's own author instructions, which should always win over anything written here.

Read the Decision Before You Choose a Target

A JACC decision letter usually tells you more than authors first notice. A desk rejection on scope or priority tends to be short and generic. It says the paper does not meet the journal's current standard for novelty or interest, and it gives little else. A rejection after external review is more useful, because the reviewer comments are an unpaid preview of what a specialist will say when the paper reaches a different journal. Write down which of these you received before you open a second browser tab.

Read the reviews the same way you would read a peer review of your own grant. Separate the points that are about the design from the points that are about framing. A reviewer who wants a longer follow-up or a better-adjusted analysis is describing a limitation that a journal with a broader clinical readership may tolerate. A reviewer who says the paper is a well-conducted registry analysis of a question nobody in the field is asking is describing a fit problem, and the fix is a different journal, not more analysis. Resist resubmitting within hours. A day of rereading will save weeks later.

One practical caution. Acceptance figures for flagship cardiology journals circulate online, often without a clear source. Treat them as rough orders of magnitude at most. They tell you how selective a journal is, not how a particular paper will fare, and they change from year to year as submission volumes shift.

What Cardiology Journals Like JACC Have in Common

JACC combines a specialist readership, a strong preference for well-powered trials and high-quality registry or cohort work, and a clear interest in clinical consequence. Journals that match it on two of those three are the sensible comparison set. Some share the readership but not the appetite for mechanistic detail. Others share the evidence standard but aim at a narrower subspecialty such as interventional cardiology, imaging or heart failure. A smaller group, mostly general medical titles with a cardiology section, shares the editorial reach but not the specialty depth.

That distinction changes what you do next. Moving to a journal with the same readership usually means keeping the framing and tightening the methods. Moving to a subspecialty journal often means rewriting the introduction for experts who already accept the clinical background, which can shorten the paper considerably. Moving to a general medical journal with a cardiology audience means the opposite: you need a sharper statement of why an internist or a primary care clinician should care.

Reporting expectations are broadly consistent across this group. A randomised trial should follow CONSORT, an observational study STROBE, a prediction model TRIPOD and a systematic review PRISMA. If your study is a protocol-driven trial, SPIRIT informs the protocol you registered. The checklist travels with the paper, so a good second submission rarely requires new analysis. It requires a different front end.

Eight Journals to Consider After a JACC Rejection

The list below is grouped by the kind of fit each title offers. Descriptions reflect the general character of each journal from public information about what it publishes. Confirm current article types, word limits, reference caps and AI disclosure rules on each journal's own instructions page before you reformat anything, because those details change and secondary guides often disagree.

Circulation, published for the American Heart Association, is the closest peer to JACC for many authors. It covers a similar range of clinical and translational cardiovascular research and has a long track record with large trials, population science and basic cardiovascular biology. Its editor-in-chief is listed on the AHA journal site as Bradley Maron, and the editorial team page is the place to check the current roster before you write to anyone. Circulation is a natural second stop when a JACC decision was about fit with the ACC audience rather than about the study itself.

The European Heart Journal, published by Oxford University Press for the European Society of Cardiology, is the main European alternative. It attracts a large share of trial and registry work from Europe, and its editors put weight on clinical relevance across guideline-relevant questions. A study built on a European cohort, a national registry or an ESC-linked trial network often reads more naturally here. Confirm the current AI-use statement requirements on the journal's site, since secondary summaries disagree about where disclosure sits in the submission.

JAMA Cardiology, from the JAMA Network, shares JACC's interest in definitive clinical evidence but applies a more general medical lens to the question being asked. It is a sensible target for comparative effectiveness work, health services research and outcome studies whose implications extend beyond cardiologists. Its sister relationship with JAMA and JAMA Network Open also means editors are used to papers that read well to a general clinical audience. The JAMA Network updated its AI guidance for authors and reviewers in 2026, and our post on the JAMA Network AI policy covers what changed.

Heart, published by BMJ on behalf of the British Cardiovascular Society, is a strong choice for clinically practical cardiology. It publishes a wide range of study types and values work that changes how cardiologists in ordinary practice manage patients, including quality improvement and implementation studies that a flagship might pass over. If your paper's contribution is a clinical-practice message, Heart can be a more comfortable fit than a journal built around landmark trials.

Cardiovascular Research, from Oxford University Press for the European Society of Cardiology, is the basic and translational counterpart. If the JACC paper had a strong mechanistic or experimental core, and the clinical story was thinner than the reviewers wanted, this journal may treat the biology as the point. Its readership is more laboratory-oriented, so the discussion needs to explain the translational route rather than assume it.

Nature Reviews Cardiology is a review journal rather than a primary research venue. It is relevant only in a narrow case: if the rejected manuscript was really a synthesis, and reviewers said the most useful thing was a clear map of the field, a state-of-the-art review may be the right article type. Do not convert an original study into a review just to find a home for it. Editors notice that immediately.

The ACC's own sister titles, JACC: Advances and JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are the last group. JACC: Advances was given a new editor-in-chief, Dinesh Kalra, in January 2026, and the ACC has said it aims to broaden the journal's scope and global reach. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions also has a new editor-in-chief named in August 2026. Those changes matter because a sister journal's priorities can shift after a leadership change, so read two or three recent issues before you assume a paper fits. A paper that was too narrow for JACC may be a good match for a specialty sister when it is genuinely about interventional practice.

Sister Journals and Transfers: Read the Offer

Publishers sometimes offer to move a rejected manuscript to a sister title. Such offers can be real opportunities, because the reviews may carry over and the second editor starts with context. They are not acceptances. A transfer usually means the paper will be assessed again against the new journal's criteria, and some publishers move only certain article types or only manuscripts that reached a particular stage of review.

Our guide on manuscript transfer and cascade submission explains how publishers move papers within their portfolios and what you give up when you accept. The short version is that a transfer is a decision about where the paper belongs, and it deserves the same care as the original choice.

Adapt the Manuscript Before You Resubmit

A paper written to a flagship's length often has material that now belongs back in the text. Secondary outcomes, sensitivity analyses, subgroup detail and a fuller limitations section are common casualties of a tight word budget, and a new journal may reward their return. A paper going to a subspecialty or clinical-practice journal may need the opposite: a clearer statement of why the result changes what a practising clinician does on Monday morning.

Rewrite the first paragraph of the introduction and the first paragraph of the discussion for the new readership. Those two passages signal the audience to an editor faster than anything else. Then rework the abstract and any structured summary, since most cardiology journals have their own format for highlights, perspectives or key messages. Editors notice when a cover letter or abstract still addresses the previous journal by name.

In the cover letter, give one specific reason this journal is the right one, drawn from its recent content. A generic compliment reads as a template. You do not need to mention the earlier rejection unless the journal asks about prior submissions. If you received reviewer reports, use them to improve the manuscript privately. Our post on responding to reviewer comments covers how to turn criticism into concrete revisions.

Check the Policy Layer Before You Send Anything

Every cardiology journal in this list has its own set of author and reviewer rules, and these rules now include AI. Publisher-level policies cover most of the ground, but individual journals add their own statements about generative AI in the manuscript, in the cover letter and in the submission system. Secondary summaries of those rules disagree with each other more often than they should. Before you resubmit, read the current instructions for authors on the target journal's own site and copy any required declaration exactly.

The same caution applies to data and trial registration. A trial that was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or another WHO-recognised registry should state its identifier consistently across the abstract, methods and any statement in the submission form. Mismatched identifiers are a common cause of administrative delay, and they are easy to avoid by checking the registry record once, against the manuscript, before the second submission goes out.

Timing, Cascades and How Many Steps Are Reasonable

Sequential submission is the normal route for a cardiology paper, because simultaneous submission of the same work is prohibited by essentially every medical journal and by ICMJE recommendations. The question is how to shorten each cycle. The most useful habit is to prepare a second version of the manuscript while the first is still under review, so that a rejection costs a day of editing and not a month of rewriting.

Be realistic about how many steps the study can afford. A trial that reports a result with clinical urgency, or one whose findings may be overtaken by a competing trial, loses value with each delay. In that case, a journal with a faster and clearer decision process may serve the work better than one with a more prestigious masthead. Preprints are an option for some cardiology studies, though policies differ between journals, so check the target journal before you post.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I submit the same cardiology paper to two journals at once? No. Simultaneous submission is prohibited by the ICMJE recommendations and by the policies of virtually every medical journal. Wait for a decision, then submit.

Does a rejection from JACC say anything about my study's quality? Not necessarily. A quick decline usually reflects scope and priority. A rejection after review is more informative, and the reviewer comments are the part to take seriously.

Should I go down the list in order of prestige? Usually not. Sorting by fit tends to produce better outcomes than sorting by how a title sounds, and several journals in the group above are at a comparable level with different readerships.

A Practical Plan for the Next Week

Reread the decision letter and classify it as a scope decision, a review-based decision or a transfer offer. Pick three candidate journals and read five recent papers from each that resemble your design. Check the current author instructions for article type, length and mandatory statements. Rewrite the first two paragraphs of the introduction and discussion for the new audience, rework the cover letter, and submit. If the second choice declines, you will already hold a formatted version for the third.

A JACC rejection is a common and survivable event in cardiology publishing. The studies that find a good home quickly are usually the ones whose authors treated the first decision as information about fit, then changed the framing and the format to suit the next editor. Start with that reading, and the choice of journal becomes much easier.

Further Reading