| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
From the Editor |
At the time this is published, I will have already begun my 9th year as Editor of Radiology. As I look back at the first issue of the Journal in which I was listed on the masthead as Editor (January 1998) and compare it with a current issue of Radiology, it is clear that the Journal has undergone much change in its content. This is due in part to the continued changes that have occurred in imaging over the past several years, to the continued submission by authors of their highest quality manuscripts, and to the changes we have implemented, the latter of which have been chronicled in my various From the Editor publications since 1998. As stated previously, "improving our Journal and our profession requires constant, positive change" (1). I hope you will agree that the changes we have made over the past several years have improved Radiology. Now there is more change.
THE "NEW GRAY"
While the content of Radiology has undergone constant change over the past several years, the display of that content has remained relatively stable. With the January 2006 issue of Radiology, we introduce the "New Gray"—the new display of Radiology content. As long as I can remember, Radiology has been known as the "Gray Journal." Thus, the new Journal cover retains some gray, while additional color has been introduced throughout the Journal pages along with what we believe to be a more appealing display of the various components of each published article.
Why the change? The Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) conducts surveys every 5–7 years and makes use of the information obtained from those surveys. When the results of a recent follow-up readership survey (2) were evaluated, reader feedback prompted us to look into a different design and display for the Journal. We are deeply indebted to RSNA staff for their diligent and tireless work with graphic designers to produce the new design for Radiology. Preliminary versions were presented to focus groups at the 2004 RSNA Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, all of which allowed for additional refinement and resulted in the "New Gray." We hope you will be pleased with the new design of Radiology.
The "New Gray" is not, however, all about appearance. We have also undertaken a reorganization of the contents of Radiology to aid the reader in quickly and easily finding material in which he or she is interested. The familiar sections—from Breast Imaging through Vascular and Interventional Radiology—remain, but we have evaluated the nature of the contents and added a layer of organization. Thus, all articles that report research results are collected under the category of Original Research. Likewise, review and opinion-oriented articles (eg, Editorials, Perspectives) are collected as Reviews and Commentary. Letters to the Editor, information from the RSNA Board of Directors, and this From the Editor, among others, now fall into the category of Communications. Popular features such as Diagnosis Please and Signs in Imaging stand on their own.
Category and section names (eg, Original Research and Gastrointestinal Imaging), as well as a brief title and the authors' names, appear on each page of every article, and the opening page of an article can be easily distinguished from the following pages by the presence of a color bar printed on the outside margin of that page. All of these changes were designed to help readers navigate through the pages of Journal, quickly finding sections and articles of interest. We have also chosen a new, more reader-friendly typeface for our Journal, and tables and figures are presented in a manner that helps to organize the information they convey.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
In 2005 (3), we introduced many changes in the guidelines listed in the Publication Information for Authors (PIA), one of which was a request that authors list on the abbreviated title page up to five Advances in Knowledge resulting from their research study. The PIA also noted that these Advances in Knowledge would be sent to the peer reviewers along with the manuscript as part of the peer review process. We have made this request of authors for three reasons: (a) to prompt authors to clearly define what they believe to be the advances of their research; (b) to allow peer reviewers to understand what the authors consider to be the advances in knowledge of their research, so that the reviewers would be able to agree or disagree on the basis of the conducted research and their knowledge of the published literature; and (c) to allow us the opportunity to publish these advances in Radiology for the benefit of our readers.
As one might suspect, the process of change takes time. Thus, we initially will not publish Advances in Knowledge for all research articles but will publish them only for those research manuscripts for which the peer reviewers have evaluated the advances, just as they have evaluated the rest of the manuscript. We hope our busy readers will find these Advances in Knowledge helpful to them in reviewing "at a glance" the new information of a given research publication. Other features we have introduced over the years for the benefit of our busy readers include the abbreviated table of contents on the cover of Radiology, the summary statement in the complete table of contents within the Journal, reasons why our abstractors have made their selections for the Abstracts of Current Literature, and Essentials, which are listed in the monthly featured article (State of the Art, Review, Special Review, among others).
RADIOLOGY ONLINE
In addition to changes to the Radiology home page (http://radiology.rsnajnls.org) to reflect the new design, two additional features have recently been activated. First, if the corresponding author of a manuscript has allowed his or her e-mail address to be published with the manuscript, that individual will be notified when the manuscript appears in Radiology Online under the banner of Continuous Publishing. The appearance of an article in Continuous Publishing in Radiology Online can occur 4–6 or more weeks in advance of its appearance in the printed Journal and constitutes the actual publication date of that article, as recognized by the National Library of Medicine. As we have emphasized in the past, the publication in Radiology Online represents "the final version that has been peer reviewed, revised, edited by our manuscript editors, and approved by the authors" (4). Second, readers can now use a PowerPoint (Microsoft, Redmond, Wash) download feature for images published in Radiology Online. This feature is intended for teaching purposes only. Accordingly, the name of the Journal and citation information will appear on the slide to signal that this material has been taken from a published article in Radiology.
Radiology Online represents a unique opportunity for readers to access many advantages offered by the electronic medium, and we have continued to expand these advantages over the past several years (1,3,5–7).
INNOVATIONS
I am pleased to announce a new section in Radiology: Innovations. We all realize that scientific medical journals wish to publish manuscripts that advance our knowledge so as to allow improved patient care. Yet, from time to time, original research results in an advance that is not only new but also a major advance, one that is highly important, insightful, and far reaching. That is what we wish to publish in Innovations. I had initially intended to entitle this section Innovations in Imaging, but then decided to use Innovations instead. Why? I concluded that Innovations in Imaging might convey an innovation with immediate application to imaging or one involving imaging itself. Such thinking would be too restrictive and would then exclude innovative basic research that might eventually lead to imaging applications or other innovative research related to the practice of our specialty. Thus the term Innovations allows a greater spectrum of highly important and insightful research to be published under that banner in Radiology.
Authors who wish their manuscripts to be considered for Innovations should clearly state in an accompanying letter why that is so. If the Editor believes there is potential, we will then solicit the opinions of peer reviewers who will review the manuscript knowing that the authors have asked for consideration for publication in that section. We will move an accepted manuscript forward to publication on a faster schedule than usual. If the manuscript is not considered appropriate for Innovations but is otherwise considered acceptable, the manuscript will be published in another appropriate section in Radiology. While we suspect manuscripts published in Innovations will be constructed in a manner similar to other research manuscripts published in the Journal, there will be flexibility with Innovations manuscripts owing to the nature of the topic.
In closing, let me say that I have been most fortunate to hold the position of Editor of Radiology for the past several years. The dedication of our authors, reviewers, those individuals listed on the Radiology masthead, and the RSNA staff in both the Richmond, Va, and the Oak Brook, Ill, offices has been exceptional. Similarly, the enthusiasm of our readers and the support of the RSNA Board of Directors have encouraged and enabled me to implement the many changes that have occurred over the past several years. While I have in mind many more changes for improvement, it is important to recognize that change also includes the transition to a new Editor of Radiology. I believe that time has arrived. Please see the announcement for the search for the new Editor in this issue of the Journal (8). I encourage all who are seriously interested in the position to apply. If selected, you will not regret having accepted the position! Enough said—there are still 2 more years of editorship for me and much more to be done!
References
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. V. Proto Radiology 2007 Farewell Radiology, December 1, 2007; 245(3): 619 - 621. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. V. Proto Radiology 2007: Reviewing for Radiology Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 7 - 11. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. V. Proto Radiology 2007: The Year Ahead Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 3 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Namasivayam, M. K. Kalra, and A. V. Proto Evolution of Radiology: From Shades of Gray to Blossoms of Color Radiology, September 1, 2006; 240(3): 916 - 917. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
