Dear Readers,

In this last issue for year 2019, we are glad to announce that our journal now is being read in 163 countries and 3353 cities around the world. Total downloads of articles has reached 130178.  You may find the most read and downloaded articles for years 2017, 2018 and 2019 in Table 1 (With special thanks to our web editor Pavel Tiumkin for preparation of statistics and table).

Heart, Vessels and Transplantation is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal, which means manuscripts undergo review by editors and external reviewers, experts in the field of the topics, presented in manuscripts. We implement a double-blind peer-review process (1), when neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. Reviewers` role is very important in reviewing of articles, based on their theoretical and practical expertise they provide comments that improve clarity and quality of reviewed manuscripts (1-5). Their work is voluntary and without monetary compensation. Authors should understand and acknowledge significance of peer-review process, reviewers` and editors` comments when receive the decision letters from editors: accept, accept with minor revision, accept with major revision (often revise and resubmit), reject.   When receive a letter with query of revision, authors have a chance to revise manuscript according with comments of reviewers and editors and increase the likelihood of their manuscript to be accepted for publication. Evidence showed that when revision was experienced as difficult and complex by authors, they were also more satisfied with improvements in their article because of peer-review (6).

 However, due to lack of experience (5, 7) it is not uncommon also when editors receive only revised version of manuscript with or without cover letter, but often without list of changes and responses to reviewers` comments. Many editors addressed issues of dealing with decision on articles and creating response to reviewers` and editors` comments (2-5, 7-11), thus guiding authors how to participate in peer-review by responding to comments, revising and improving quality of their work.

There are several main rules of responding to reviewers` comments: respond completely, politely and with evidence (9), and as soon as possible without delays (11).

Read carefully editors` decision letter and reviewers’ comments, instructions for authors. The letter from editor might contain additional instructions how to submit revision. Read and revise your manuscript in view of proposed changes and comments.