HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Proto, A. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Proto, A. V.

Radiology 2007: Evaluating and Processing Your Manuscript for Publication

Editor's note: The following represents an updated version of material that was previously published in November 1999 (1).

—Anthony V. Proto, MD, Editor

	INTRODUCTION

TOP INTRODUCTION MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW MANUSCRIPT DECISION MANUSCRIPT REVISION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT... MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE... SUMMARY References

 
My intent in writing this editorial is threefold: (a) to inform our authors of the steps through which their manuscripts progress (b) to help our authors understand why the first decision and subsequent decision stages require the time that they do, and (c) to inform our readers of the extensive evaluation processes manuscripts undergo before reaching the stage of publication.

The evaluation and processing of a manuscript submitted to Radiology involve numerous steps before publication. Below, you will find an overview of our procedures. Although this overview provides a considerable amount of information, it is not possible to address every variation or circumstance that might arise when dealing with our large yearly volume of submissions.

	MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW

TOP INTRODUCTION MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW MANUSCRIPT DECISION MANUSCRIPT REVISION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT... MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE... SUMMARY References

 
We implemented a process for online manuscript submission and peer review in February 2002 (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rad). When a manuscript is submitted, the online system assigns the manuscript a number and sends the author a message acknowledging receipt of the manuscript. A staff member in the Richmond, Virginia, office then reviews the submitted manuscript to ensure that the appropriate manuscript components and forms have been included with the submission. If items essential to the evaluation process are missing, the corresponding author is contacted and asked to send those required items. Once such items have been received and the manuscript has been blinded for items that may reveal its origin (eg, institution name, author initials, author name included in text), the manuscript is ready for peer review. Blinding of the manuscript by our staff is often a time-consuming and arduous process, as some authors do not follow our guidelines regarding the exclusion of items that may reveal their identity or the institution from which the manuscript originated. We urge authors to follow our guidelines regarding these items so as not to delay the process of sending a manuscript for peer review.

The manuscript categorization terms submitted by the author allow us to generate a list of potential reviewers. Potential reviewers receive a message regarding their availability to review the manuscript; the manuscript abstract is included with the message. A staff member in the Richmond office selects reviewers on the basis of reviewer availability and reviewer categorization terms (chosen by reviewers to reflect their areas of expertise) that most closely match the manuscript categorization terms submitted by the author. The Editor does not select reviewers for two reasons: (a) so that reviewer assignment is ongoing throughout the entire day (the Editor may not be able to devote the entire day to reviewer selection owing to other editorial responsibilities) and (b) so that authors will not be concerned that the Editor may intentionally choose for their manuscript or for the manuscript of other authors reviewers recognized by the Editor as more likely to favor rejection or acceptance, respectively. Since we use a double-blinded peer review process, the reviewers are not made aware of the identity of the authors, and, similarly, the authors are not made aware of the names of the peer reviewers for their manuscripts.

A potential reviewer can accept the manuscript for review by clicking on the appropriate link in the message sent to the reviewer. Alternatively, he or she can respond in the affirmative to our query regarding availability for manuscript review, and we will then make the manuscript available in the reviewer's queue at Manuscript Central. Each manuscript is evaluated by no fewer than two external peer reviewers (additional internal review is also performed).

We are fortunate to have numerous reviewers in the Radiology reviewer database. Most of our reviewers complete their reviews within the allotted 3 weeks. Reviewers receive a reminder message 4 days before the due date, as well as 5 days and 2 weeks after the due date, if needed. Numerous checks and balances are in place to help ensure that the manuscript review time is not unnecessarily long. Thus, we may send a 24-hour notice message to a late reviewer indicating that the manuscript will be available in the reviewer's queue for no more than 24 additional hours. Almost always, the reviewer responds. However, if the reviewer's schedule will not allow completion of the review within the 24-hour period (or shortly thereafter) due to extenuating circumstances, the reviewer can request that he or she be relieved of the responsibility to review the manuscript. If the peer reviewer is able to submit the review shortly after the 24-hour period, he or she can do so by e-mail and the review will be forwarded to the corresponding author of the manuscript along with other reviews received.

On occasion, we may not have sufficient information to make a decision, owing to brief reviews or widely divergent reviewer comments and recommendations. In such instances, we will ask for additional reviews (by associate editors, consultants to the editor, or other reviewers) by sending a message asking an individual to perform the review within a 2- rather than a 3-week period. Our deputy editors may also provide additional reviews to guide the Editor. If any additional reviews are requested, we send a message to the corresponding author informing him or her of the same so that the corresponding author will realize that the decision process may be delayed. I believe obtaining additional input in such situations is important out of fairness both to the authors and to the journal.

	MANUSCRIPT DECISION

TOP INTRODUCTION MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW MANUSCRIPT DECISION MANUSCRIPT REVISION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT... MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE... SUMMARY References

 
Once all reviews have been received, our staff will prepare the manuscript for further evaluation by the Editor. The Editor reads the reviewers' comments and recommendations, evaluates the manuscript, and renders a decision. For manuscripts on which the reviewers disagree with regard to acceptance, he will seek additional advice from the deputy editors (or others—see above), who will review the manuscript, provide comments for the authors, and recommend acceptance or rejection. All comments are taken into account, along with the Editor's own evaluation of the manuscript, before a decision is made. When the Editor reviews a manuscript for decision making, he is blinded to both the names of the authors and the institution(s) of origin of the manuscript. Thus, he evaluates the manuscript in the same blinded fashion as do the peer reviewers.

If it appears likely that a manuscript will be accepted on the basis of reviewer evaluation, any requested deputy editor critique, and the Editor's evaluation, the manuscript will be sent for statistical review by one of our statistical consultants before a decision is rendered. Statistical review for all manuscripts having statistical analysis of data became routine in 2001 (2).

As already noted, all manuscript decisions are made by the Editor after due consideration of all comments received. I have chosen to proceed in this fashion, as I believe it offers all authors consistency in the decision-making process. At the time of this writing, the average time to first decision for all submissions is 34 days, having decreased from 54 days in 1998.

I use three decision categories—reject, under consideration, or accept. Our online system for manuscript submission and review allows authors to check the decision status as desired (3).

Reject.—For a manuscript that has been rejected, the message notifying the corresponding author of that decision also includes reviewer comments. On occasion, we will notify the authors that they have the option to resubmit the manuscript if they are able to fully respond to all of the reviewer concerns and those noted by the Editor. This option to resubmit the manuscript is offered to the author when the Editor considers that there is potential for publication but that it is unclear whether the substantial changes that are needed can be accomplished (eg, major reevaluation of the data, collection of additional data, performance of additional experimental work with changes in methods). Authors who are offered this option for resubmission are under no obligation to resubmit the manuscript.

If the manuscript is resubmitted, it is assigned a new manuscript number and is sent for peer review as for any new submission. The peer reviewers of the resubmitted manuscript are a combination of those who reviewed the original manuscript and new reviewers who have not previously evaluated the manuscript. This combination offers the Editor two perspectives—whether the manuscript has substantially improved (from the original reviewers) and a "fresh" evaluation (from the new reviewers).

Under consideration.—The manuscript that has been placed in this category has been neither accepted nor rejected but shows sufficient merit so that the option for a major revision is offered to the authors. Authors offered this option are also under no obligation to revise the manuscript. They are advised in the decision letter to be certain they can completely respond to all the items of concern raised by the reviewers and the Editor before undertaking the substantial revision process. If revised, the manuscript is returned to the original reviewers to determine if their requests for substantial revisions have been satisfactorily addressed. Many reviewers have offered positive comments about the opportunity to reevaluate such a manuscript, as it represents an educational process for them. Reviewers learn why some changes they have requested are not made (authors indicate their reasons with the rationale for their decision) and learn of new information provided by the authors. Reviewers receive a copy of the authors' response letter and the annotated version to aid in their evaluation.

As is done for the original review, the identity of the origin of the manuscript is not revealed to the reviewers. Should one of the original reviewers not be available or if the Editor considers that a fresh perspective is also needed, a new reviewer will be assigned in addition to the original reviewers of the manuscript. Reviewers are given the routine 3 weeks to accomplish their reviews. Thus, authors who revise a manuscript in the "under consideration" decision category should expect that the first few weeks after submission of the revised version will be allocated to reviewer evaluation. Typically, the Editor will change the decision of "under consideration" to either accept or reject once the revision is evaluated along with the reviewers' comments and those provided by the deputy editors (see Manuscript Revision below).

How is the decision of "under consideration" different from that of rejection with the option to revise and resubmit the manuscript? For the decision of "under consideration," the Editor believes that there is substantial potential for publication and that the needed revisions in all likelihood can be accomplished.

Accept.—The decision to accept is made with the understanding that the manuscript will be satisfactorily revised. The corresponding author of an accepted manuscript receives a detailed letter, including a request for several revisions that have resulted from the Editor having read the entire manuscript, again without the knowledge of the authors' names. The corresponding author also receives copies of manuscript pages on which the Editor has made edits and a copy of the reviewer comments that have been selected by the Editor for revision of the manuscript. While satisfactory revision occurs in almost all instances, on rare occasion an accepted manuscript will subsequently be rejected because a revision acceptable to both the authors and the editorial office cannot be achieved.

	MANUSCRIPT REVISION

TOP INTRODUCTION MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW MANUSCRIPT DECISION MANUSCRIPT REVISION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT... MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE... SUMMARY References

 
Before a decision letter is sent to the corresponding author whose manuscript has been accepted by the Editor or placed in the category of "under consideration," a member of our Richmond office staff will carefully review the manuscript for items that do not follow our guidelines or for other needed materials. Having completed this review, the staff member includes a request for those items in the decision letter. The decision letter also states the format for submission of the revised manuscript. It is especially important that authors follow these directions carefully. Often, the annotated copy is prepared incorrectly by the author, necessitating a request for a correctly prepared copy and causing a delay in the review of the revision.

Revisions that are received more than 3 months after requested may be sent for additional review at the discretion of the Editor. He exercises this option when, for example, change is rapidly occurring in the subject matter being reported by the authors, to ensure that the manuscript is up to date regarding current investigations in that area.

All first revisions are carefully reviewed by our deputy editors, whether for an initially accepted manuscript or for one that is initially placed in the decision category of "under consideration." On occasion, we may send the revision of an accepted manuscript to a reviewer who has requested to see that revision or, alternatively, when the Editor considers that additional evaluation is needed. We will so inform the corresponding author of the intention to do so in the letter of acceptance. The deputy editors check that all nonstatistical requested revisions have been made or, if not made, that the authors have provided an adequate reason for not having done so. The deputy editor advises the Editor as to whether the manuscript has been satisfactorily revised and identifies those items in need of further review by the Editor. Similarly, the statistical consultant will evaluate the adequacy of the revisions made regarding comments offered by that consultant from his or her review of the original manuscript. The Editor also reviews the revision, along with the deputy editor's and statistical consultant's comments, and then renders a decision to accept or reject if the manuscript was initially placed in the "under consideration" category. For both manuscripts under consideration and those initially accepted, the Editor determines if additional revisions are needed. In general, only minor additional changes may be required if the authors have not made all of the requested revisions or if the changes made by the authors have raised additional concerns.

	ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT TO AN ISSUE

TOP INTRODUCTION MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW MANUSCRIPT DECISION MANUSCRIPT REVISION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT... MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE... SUMMARY References

 
Once a manuscript has been accepted as revised, it is placed in a queue along with others that have reached the same status. The position in the queue is primarily based on the date of final acceptance of the manuscript (the corresponding author receives a letter indicating final acceptance of the manuscript and that the manuscript can be considered in press). A given issue of Radiology is assembled 5 months in advance of its publication in print. Publication in Radiology Online, however, can occur 4-7 or more weeks in advance of publication in print. The online publication date is the date recognized by the National Library of Medicine, as Radiology Online is the journal of record for Radiology. In general, manuscripts become available in Radiology Online on a weekly basis in the Continuous Publishing section (4). A manuscript published in Radiology Online is the same version as that published in print, except that the online version may contain additional tabular material, images, movies, et cetera. In such instances, it is clearly noted in the printed version that such supplemental material is available in Radiology Online.

Before a manuscript is assigned to an issue, the assistant to the Editor carefully reviews it to ensure that all necessary items have been included in preparation for forwarding the manuscript to our manuscript editors and production staff at the RSNA office in Oak Brook, Illinois. A letter is sent to the corresponding author indicating the time frame during which to expect receipt of the copyedited version of the manuscript.

	MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE OAK BROOK OFFICE

TOP INTRODUCTION MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW MANUSCRIPT DECISION MANUSCRIPT REVISION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT... MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE... SUMMARY References

 
When a manuscript reaches the Oak Brook office, it is reviewed by a staff member to determine a preliminary page count. The images are carefully evaluated for final sizing, layout, and quality. Our manuscript editors edit the manuscripts to conform with Radiology style and according to widely accepted conventions of copyediting. The edited manuscript and figure proofs are sent to the corresponding author in electronic format. It is then the responsibility of the authors to answer all queries by the manuscript editors and production staff and to ensure that the final product is accurate as edited. The Editor also reviews the figures and other selected areas of the edited manuscript and answers any queries posed to him by the manuscript editors. Once the manuscript editors receive responses and suggestions from the authors and the Editor, the manuscript is finalized and is ready for publication.

The processing of your manuscript in the Oak Brook office involves numerous steps that are guided by a strict timetable. To avoid delays in publication of their work, authors are advised to quickly review the manuscript proofs and to respond to queries from our manuscript editors. Authors should realize, however, that a given manuscript may be shifted to a subsequent issue of the journal if, at the stage of final pagination, an issue exceeds the maximum number of allowed pages. However, the manuscript will not be delayed for publication in the Continuous Publishing section of Radiology Online.

	SUMMARY

TOP INTRODUCTION MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW MANUSCRIPT DECISION MANUSCRIPT REVISION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT... MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE... SUMMARY References

 
I hope I have succeeded in my threefold intent: to inform authors of the steps through which their manuscripts progress, to help authors understand why the first decision and subsequent decision stages require the time that they do, and to inform our readers of the extensive evaluation processes manuscripts undergo before publication. On the basis of comments I have received, I believe authors value our layered processes that help ensure the quality of material that is published in Radiology. For the past 10 years, I have been most appreciative of and thankful for the outstanding cooperation I have received from authors worldwide who send their manuscripts to Radiology for evaluation and publication.

	References

TOP INTRODUCTION MANUSCRIPT RECEIPT AND REVIEW MANUSCRIPT DECISION MANUSCRIPT REVISION ASSIGNMENT OF THE MANUSCRIPT... MANUSCRIPT PROCESSING IN THE... SUMMARY References

 

1. Proto AV. Radiology 1999: evaluating and processing your manuscript for publication. Radiology 1999;213(2):313–315.[Free Full Text]
2. Proto AV. Radiology 2001: the upcoming year. Radiology 2001;218(1):1–2.[Free Full Text]
3. Proto AV. Radiology 2003: the constancy of change. Radiology 2003;226(1):1–4.[Free Full Text]
4. Proto AV. Radiology 2001: continuous publishing. Radiology 2001;221(2):281.[Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. G. Sheiman The RSNA Reviewer Mentorship Program Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 631 - 632. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. V. Proto Radiology 2007: Reviewing for Radiology Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 7 - 11. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Proto, A. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Proto, A. V.