| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Editor |
Index terms: Editorials • Radiology (journal)
The January 2002 issue of Radiology is the first to be published during my 5th year as Editor of the Journal. It is difficult to believe that 4 years have passed so quickly! For me, the experience has been an exhilarating one, as I have had and continue to have the opportunity to evaluate some of the best research being performed in the imaging, imaging-related, radiation oncology, and medical physics specialties throughout the world. I extend my compliments and my sincerest thanks to our authors for their innovations and for submitting their manuscripts to Radiology; my sincerest thanks to our reviewers, whose insights into the importance of the content of the manuscripts they review and into scientific methodology help guide our editorial decisions; and my sincerest thanks to our readers for both their feedback and their continued interest in Radiology.
The tragic events of September 11, 2001, have become a part of history that will be read by many future generations. Although the events occurred in the United States, the repercussions have reverberated throughout the world, as we can see from the responses of numerous nations to these events. These responses emphasize there is a brotherhood of humanity throughout the world. That brotherhood includes the scientific community, as well. We received at the Radiology Editorial Office in Richmond, Virginia, many notes of condolence from our authors, reviewers, and readers around the world. Although I responded to each, I thank these individuals again for their kind words. I also thank our authors for their patience during the several weeks that followed the events of September 11, 2001. The cadence of mail flow in our office was affected in many ways by these events. At the time of writing this Editorial, we are just beginning to return to a more routine status.
Let me share with you a number of items I believe reflect continued progress not only for our Journal but also for our specialty.
Continuous Publishing
In the November 2001 issue of Radiology, we announced implementation of "continuous publishing," the term we use "to denote publication of materials in Radiology Online in advance of their appearance in the printed version of the Journal" (1). In that announcement, we estimated that such online publications could potentially appear some 5 weeks in advance of the mailing of the November printed issue. In fact, the first continuous publishing articles became available online slightly more than 4 weeks in advance of mailing the November printed issue. The first manuscripts slated for the December 2001 issue became available online 6 weeks in advance of the mail date for that printed issue. Clearly, our ability to publish online in advance of print will depend on how quickly authors return to our manuscript editors the copyedited version of the manuscript they have received for approval. The sooner we receive an author’s approval and response to any queries posed by the manuscript editors, the sooner the manuscript can be finalized for online publication. Our ability to publish online weeks in advance of print has also been integrally related to the staff in our Oak Brook, Illinois, office. The staff have worked diligently to make continuous publishing a reality. I am privileged to work with these individuals and am most thankful for their dedication to this project, as their time and effort have also allowed an author’s work to now be published weeks in advance of the printed version of Radiology.
It is important for authors to realize that the online date of publication is recognized by the National Library of Medicine, which considers Radiology Online as the version of our journal it reviews for recording purposes. It is important for readers to realize that articles appearing under continuous publishing are the same as those found in the printed journal—that is, the final version resulting from peer review, revision, copy editing, and author approval. We do not publish online "preliminary," "updated," or "corrected" versions of articles, as is done by some journals.
Please see my November 2001 Editorial for more information on continuous publishing. Also, please log onto Radiology Online (radiology.rsnajnls.org) to read the most current imaging science published weeks in advance of print.
Review of Manuscripts by Statisticians
As of January 2001, we implemented review by statisticians of all accepted manuscripts having statistical content. This represented a major change for Radiology, in that prior to January 2001, only selected manuscripts were submitted for statistical review. A year later, I am happy to report that we are pleased with our decision to implement such review. Rather than having access to one statistician, we are fortunate to have access to a number of statisticians with specific areas of specialty expertise. This access allows us the opportunity to match the statistical content of the manuscript to be reviewed to the expertise of the statistician. Since such a process was already in place for our nonstatistical peer review of manuscripts, we wanted no less for the statistical review of manuscripts submitted to our Journal.
The statisticians have on many occasions been able to suggest to our authors various statistical analyses that might lend further strength to the results of their investigations. They have been able to work with authors and their statisticians to clarify issues when different opinions have arisen as to the appropriate statistical tests to apply for data analysis. A number of authors have given us positive feedback regarding their appreciation of this level of review of their work. Undoubtedly, other authors may consider the statistical review as another series of comments necessitating response. It is our hope, however, that everyone realizes the importance of adequate statistical analysis when the study data lend themselves to such analysis. Moreover, statistical analysis, when appropriately applied, can strengthen the quality of science in our specialty, can lend additional stature to an author’s publication, and can elevate the stature and importance of these publications in the eyes of other leading medical journals.
Within the past several months, we have been publishing brief commentaries by our statisticians. A commentary emphasizes "an important facet" (2) of the statistical analysis used in a given manuscript. As an aid to readers to be aware of such commentaries, a bulleted note indicating a commentary is provided can be found in the table of contents under the summary statement of the article for which the commentary has been prepared.
We thank authors for their cooperation during our 1st year of statistical review of all accepted manuscripts that have statistical content. We look forward to continuing such review as part of our commitment to quality for authors, reviewers, and readers.
Statistical Concepts Series
We are pleased to begin publishing later this year a series of articles emphasizing basic statistical concepts. Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, MS, Associate Professor of Radiology and Health Services Research at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and Philip E. Crewson, PhD, Assistant Director of Scientific Development, Health Services Research and Development Service at the Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, are co-editors of this series. They have assembled several accomplished authors to prepare topics with graded levels of difficulty, so as to introduce some of the essentials necessary for basic understanding of statistical concepts. It is our hope that this series will familiarize authors, reviewers, and readers with concepts important for their critical assessment of research, whether it be at the stage when it is performed by the authors, when it is reviewed by the reviewers, or when it is read by our readers. Drs Applegate and Crewson have worked closely with the authors regarding the level of detail provided by each and the avoidance of substantial overlap between manuscripts written by different authors. All manuscripts have also undergone peer review both by our statistical consultants and by additional peer reviewers.
We extend our deepest thanks and appreciation to all who have contributed to this series. Our special thanks are extended to Drs Applegate and Crewson for their numerous hours of dedication to this project.
Institutional Review Board Approval and Patient Informed Consent, Animal Experimental Studies
As we all know, a patient’s rights must be respected. Thus, Radiology authors are aware that institutional review board (or ethical committee) approval and patient informed consent are items to which I pay special attention when reviewing a manuscript for publication in our Journal. The "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" (available at: www.icmje.org/index.html; updated October 2001) states, "When reporting experiments on human subjects, indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) ..." Prospective investigations typically require institutional review board approval and patient informed consent, even if the procedures performed are routine or clinically indicated. Many institutional review boards also require their approval for retrospective studies reviewing patient images, data, records, et cetera. In working with authors, I have learned that the requirements for institutional review board or ethical committee approval, the granting of waivers, and other such related items may vary somewhat from institution to institution and country to country. I urge authors to familiarize themselves with their institutional review board requirements so as not to begin a study without having received appropriate approval, if required.
The "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" also state, "When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institution’s or a national research council’s guide for, or any national law on, the care and use of laboratory animals was followed." We advise authors planning investigations for our Experimental Studies section in Radiology to be aware of these guidelines, as we require an appropriate statement regarding animal care committee approval for such experimental studies involving animals.
Special Review and Special Report
We are exceptionally pleased to publish in this month’s issue of Radiology a Special Review by Drs Hendee, Chien, Maynard, and Dean (3), as well as a Special Report by Drs Hillman and Neiman (4). Hendee et al trace for us the contributions of many individuals and the series of events that have brought to reality what is now known as the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). In addition, Hendee et al list the research goals for biomedical imaging and bioengineering, emphasizing the many opportunities NIBIB offers for researchers. Hillman and Neiman report on the recommendations made to the American College of Radiology (ACR) by a group of individuals convened by the College. Their charge was "to develop scenarios about how molecular imaging would develop in the future and to make recommendations to the ACR about how to prepare radiologists for this important set of technologies" (4). The authors address the status of technology and training, a number of critical issues for our specialty, as well as other topics.
I urge our readers to review both of these articles, which I believe to be of special importance in relation to both the opportunities and the direction for future research in our specialty. As noted by Hendee et al regarding the establishment of NIBIB, "The timing could not have been better, because today biomedical imaging and biomedical engineering are expanding rapidly from the detection, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases and disabilities at the level of tissues and organs to the analysis of structure and function at the molecular and genetic levels" (3). We look forward to publishing in Radiology the results of research directed at these levels.
I look forward to the upcoming year and, as always, welcome your feedback.
REFERENCES
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. V. Proto Radiology 2006: More Change Radiology, January 1, 2006; 238(1): 3 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. V. Proto Radiology 2005--What's Happening? Radiology, January 1, 2005; 234(1): 5 - 7. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. V. Proto Radiology 2004--New Directions Radiology, January 1, 2004; 230(1): 3 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. C. Pezzullo and A. M. Lewicki Schatzki Ring, Statistically Reexamined Radiology, September 1, 2003; 228(3): 609 - 613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. V. Proto Radiology 2002—Statistical Concepts Series Radiology, November 1, 2002; 225(2): 317 - 317. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
