Rejected from Circulation? The 7 Best Journals to Submit Next

• Broad cardiovascular relevance: Circulation serves cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, electrophysiologists, and vascular specialists. If your paper interests only interventional cardiologists or only heart failure specialists, the editors may redirect it to a subspecialty AHA journal. The findings need to matter across cardiovascular medicine.

• Clinical or translational impact: Basic cardiovascular biology without a clinical bridge is out of scope. If you've discovered a new signaling pathway in cardiomyocytes but can't connect it to a clinical question, Circulation Research is the better target.

• Methodological rigor: Circulation expects proper trial design, adequate power, pre-specified endpoints, and adherence to CONSORT or STROBE guidelines. Post-hoc analyses and underpowered studies face an uphill battle at the desk.

• "The findings are primarily of interest to a subspecialty audience.": Your electrophysiology study or heart failure trial is excellent but too focused for Circulation's general cardiovascular readership. The AHA has specialty journals for exactly this situation.

• "The clinical implications are not sufficiently clear.": Your basic science is strong, but you haven't explained how it connects to patient care. Circulation wants the translational bridge to be explicit, not implied.

• "We have recently addressed this topic.": Circulation avoids publishing too many papers on the same subject in close succession. Your paper may be strong but poorly timed.

• "The study design limits the conclusions.": Observational cardiology studies face a higher bar at Circulation than at some competitors, especially when a randomized trial would have been feasible.

Circulation is published by the American Heart Association, which operates a family of cardiovascular journals:

• Circulation Research (IF ~17) - Basic and translational cardiovascular science- Circulation: Heart Failure (IF ~10) - Heart failure specific- Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology (IF ~6) - Electrophysiology- Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging (IF ~8) - Imaging studies- Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (IF ~6) - Health services, quality- Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions (IF ~7) - Interventional cardiologyIf Circulation's editors suggest a transfer, take it seriously. These aren't consolation prizes. Circulation Research has an IF of ~17 and is the top basic cardiovascular science journal. Publishing in the right AHA specialty journal often carries more weight in your subspecialty than a marginal Circulation paper would.

Before choosing your next journal, a Circulation manuscript fit check can tell you whether the issue was scope or something more fundamental to address first.

• Clinical trial desk-rejected?: Go to JACC first, then European Heart Journal. If both decline, consider JAMA Cardiology. Don't drop below the top tier unless all three say no.

• Basic science rejected for "no clinical connection"?: Circulation Research is the most natural cascade. Cardiovascular Research is the European equivalent.

• Subspecialty paper rejected for "too narrow"?: Go to the appropriate AHA or ESC specialty journal: Circulation: Heart Failure, Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, or the JACC equivalent.

• Rejected after peer review?: Fix reviewer concerns and submit to JACC or EHJ. Cardiovascular reviewers overlap across these journals, so addressing the feedback is essential.

• Reframe for the new journal's audience: Circulation readers are primarily US cardiologists. EHJ readers are European. JACC readers include more interventionalists and imagers. Adjust your introduction and clinical implications section accordingly.

• Check your reporting guidelines: Circulation is strict about CONSORT and STROBE compliance. If missing compliance triggered your rejection, fix this before submitting anywhere.

• Tighten the clinical message: If Circulation said your clinical implications were unclear, sharpen them before submitting to JACC or EHJ. The same criticism will surface.

JACC is Circulation's most direct competitor. Both are top-tier clinical cardiology journals published by major US cardiology organizations. The editorial scope overlaps significantly, but JACC has subtle differences in emphasis. JACC tends to publish more imaging studies and interventional cardiology papers than Circulation. The journal also runs a successful family of subspecialty journals (JACC: Heart Failure, JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology) with their own transfer systems.

Best for: Clinical cardiology trials, interventional studies, imaging research, and papers with strong ACC-guideline relevance.

EHJ is the flagship journal of the European Society of Cardiology and the strongest cardiology journal outside the US. With an IF around 35, it's actually ranked above Circulation in some years. EHJ publishes the ESC clinical guidelines, which gives it direct influence on European cardiovascular practice. If your paper has a European cohort, European collaborators, or addresses questions particularly relevant to European clinical practice, EHJ is often a better fit than Circulation. The journal also tends to publish more epidemiological and population-level cardiovascular research than Circulation.

Best for: European cardiovascular research, ESC guideline-relevant studies, cardiovascular epidemiology, and clinical trials with European cohorts.

For basic and translational cardiovascular science, Circulation Research is the premier journal. If Circulation rejected your paper because the work is "too basic" or "lacks clear clinical implications," Circulation Research is exactly where it belongs. The journal wants mechanistic cardiovascular biology, vascular biology, cardiac development, and translational studies. Circulation Research is published by the same AHA organization, so a transfer is seamless and carries built-in credibility.

Best for: Basic cardiovascular biology, vascular biology, cardiac regeneration, translational studies without immediate clinical application.

JAMA Cardiology brings the JAMA editorial philosophy to cardiovascular medicine. The journal values clinical rigor, clear study design, and practical relevance to practicing cardiologists. It publishes fewer papers than Circulation or JACC, which makes it selective but also means each paper gets more visibility. JAMA Cardiology is part of the JAMA Network, so transfers from JAMA are possible. If you submitted to JAMA first and got redirected, JAMA Cardiology may already be on your radar.

Best for: Well-designed clinical cardiology studies, health services research in cardiovascular medicine, outcomes studies.

For translational cardiovascular research that reveals disease mechanisms, Nature Medicine offers a different audience and editorial perspective. Where Circulation asks "does this change cardiology practice?", Nature Medicine asks "does this change how we understand cardiovascular disease?" If Circulation rejected your paper for being "too translational" or "more about mechanism than practice," Nature Medicine may value exactly that perspective. The APC ($11,690) is significant, but the journal's broad readership extends well beyond cardiology.

Best for: Translational cardiovascular discoveries with mechanistic depth, biomarker studies, precision medicine approaches to heart disease.

For heart failure research specifically, EJHF is the top specialty journal in Europe and a strong global venue. If Circulation rejected your heart failure study for being "too subspecialty," EJHF is where it will reach the most relevant audience. EJHF's IF (~16) is strong, and the journal publishes the Heart Failure Association of the ESC guidelines. Your paper will influence the clinicians who need to see it most.

Best for: Heart failure clinical trials, device studies in heart failure, heart failure biomarkers, registry studies.

Cardiovascular Research is published by the ESC and focuses on basic and translational cardiovascular science. It occupies a similar niche to Circulation Research but with a European editorial perspective. The acceptance rate (~18%) is more accessible than both Circulation and Circulation Research.

Best for: Basic cardiovascular biology, translational studies, and cardiovascular science papers where the European research community is the primary audience.

• How to choose a journal for your paper
• Signs your paper is not ready to submit
• What pre-submission peer review includes

Before you resubmit, run your manuscript through a manuscript scope and readiness check to check fit, structure, and editorial risk before the next submission.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Circulation, four patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before resubmission.

Subspecialty findings without broad cardiovascular relevance. Circulation serves cardiologists, electrophysiologists, cardiac surgeons, and vascular specialists as a single readership. We see this failure regularly in manuscripts we review: papers that advance understanding of one subspecialty but do not address a question that matters across cardiovascular medicine. Electrophysiology papers with narrow ablation endpoint findings, or heart failure papers focused on a single biomarker, consistently fail the desk breadth test. In our review of Circulation submissions, we find that scope mismatch of this kind accounts for a plurality of desk rejections.

Basic cardiovascular science without a direct clinical bridge. Circulation expects translational clarity. Papers demonstrating a novel signaling pathway in cardiomyocytes without connecting to a clinical question or patient phenotype are consistently redirected to Circulation Research. We see this pattern in basic science manuscripts we review targeting Circulation: mechanistically rigorous work where the implications for patient management are speculative or absent.

Observational studies without sufficient evidence that randomization was not feasible. Circulation holds observational cardiology to a higher bar than many competitor journals. Papers describing cohort outcomes where a randomized controlled trial would have been feasible receive consistent reviewer pushback on causal inference. Editors screen for this at the desk.

CONSORT or STROBE reporting gaps in clinical submissions. Circulation requires adherence to standard reporting guidelines for trials and observational studies. Missing flow diagrams, incomplete participant disposition data, or absent sensitivity analyses generate returns even for scientifically strong papers.

SciRev community data for Circulation confirms desk rejections typically arrive within days, with post-review first decisions taking 4-8 weeks, consistent with the fast editorial cadence the AHA maintains across its flagship portfolio.

Think twice before submitting to JACC or European Heart Journal if Circulation's reviewers identified methodological gaps; both journals share reviewer networks with Circulation, and the same concerns will surface.