| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
From the Editor |
Editor's note: The following represents an updated version of material that was previously published in June 2000 (1).—Anthony V. Proto, MD, Editor
 |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
 TOP INTRODUCTION ESSENTIAL COMPONENTSWHAT TO DO AND...References |
|---|
Shortly after I was appointed Editor, a number of reviewers contacted me to inquire whether I would provide guidelines for reviewing. My response was that I would, but first I needed to accumulate experience to determine what, in fact, would be the most helpful review for me when rendering a decision on a manuscript. In the meantime, the system in place and used by my predecessor had been working well, so it seemed prudent to continue the same. In my 3rd year as Editor, I did offer guidelines for reviewing (1), guidelines that I am now updating with this communication. Once again, I stress the following: First, we at Radiology are fortunate to have a large cadre of outstanding reviewers. They have provided us their insights and dedicated service for many years, and we look forward to their continued service in the years to come. Second, I realize that many reviewers have their own preferred styles of reviewing and acknowledge that those varied styles have been of immense help to me over the past years.
One can become a reviewer for Radiology in several ways, some of which include invitation by the Editor, recommendation by a member of the Radiology Editorial Board, recommendation by a current Radiology peer reviewer, and request from the individual indicating his or her interest in becoming a peer reviewer. When an individual is added to our database of peer reviewers, he or she will initially function on several occasions as an "extra" peer reviewer (trial period) for a manuscript that is also being reviewed in routine fashion by our more experienced peer reviewers. A reviewer of a manuscript receives the comments of the other reviewers of that manuscript so as to be aware of the comments made by all reviewers. Peer reviewers are evaluated by the Editor for their timeliness, and their comments are compared with those made by other peer reviewers of the same manuscript. Editor's Recognition Awards are given yearly on the basis of those evaluations and comparisons. Category I continuing medical education credit is also given if requested by the reviewer (see below).
Since we use a double-blinded peer review system, reviewers are not made aware of the identity of the authors. Similarly, the authors are not made aware of the identity of the reviewers of their manuscripts. From our online system (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rad) for manuscript submission and peer review (3), a potential reviewer receives a message that includes the abstract of a given manuscript and a query as to his or her availability to review the manuscript. The reviewer can accept the manuscript for peer review by clicking on the appropriate link in the message or by responding in the affirmative to our query, after which we will make the manuscript available in the reviewer's queue at Manuscript Central. As already noted, reviewers are given 3 full weeks to evaluate a manuscript. Reminder messages are sent 4 days in advance of the due date and, if needed, 5 days and 2 weeks after the due date. Timely return of reviews is important for the author, as reviewers will undoubtedly understand when they themselves are authors of a manuscript undergoing peer review.
When a reviewer accepts the responsibility for peer review of a manuscript, information is included as to how to obtain category 1 continuing medical education credit for that review. Up to 15 hours of such credit can be obtained in a given calendar year as a total for all journals for which a reviewer performs peer review (4).
Although the information provided below is intended for our peer reviewers, we hope authors will also find it of use to them in the preparation of their manuscripts.
|
ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONESSENTIAL COMPONENTSWHAT TO DO AND...References |
|---|
Identifying Information
The manuscript number and manuscript title are provided by our online system for manuscript submission and peer review.
Summary
Provide a one-paragraph summary of what was done and what was found. This summary provides the Editor with a background that is helpful in determining the importance of the specific suggestions for revision appearing later in the review.
Major Strengths
List the three major strengths of the manuscript—give more or fewer than three, as appropriate. Examples include, but are not limited to, importance of the findings, sound methodology, control for bias, appropriate patient group, topic of current interest, appropriate statistical analysis, immediate practical value for daily clinical practice, innovative technique, prospective study, and message of substantial importance for patient care.
Major Weaknesses
List the three major weaknesses of the manuscript—give more or fewer than three, as appropriate. Examples include, but are not limited to, minimal or no importance of the findings; flawed methodology; biased patient selection; insufficient number of patients; missing exclusion and inclusion criteria; inappropriate controls; topic already well studied by others, as evidenced in the published literature, and no substantial incremental knowledge provided; subject matter not appropriate for the journal; data do not support the conclusions; study limitations are not discussed by the authors; inter- and intraobserver agreement not evaluated although appropriate for the study; inadequate or inappropriate statistical analysis; excessive speculation; and evaluations performed with outdated techniques.
Advances in Knowledge
Authors are requested to list on the abbreviated title page the advances in knowledge provided by the study (5). These advances prompt the author to focus on what is truly new from the study and to provide the peer reviewer with the author's assessment of the same. The peer reviewer should evaluate these advances after having read the manuscript so as to determine whether they are truly new advances in knowledge and indicate agreement or disagreement with the list or suggest modifications as appropriate. If the advances have been previously reported and therefore are not advances, please indicate the same and offer a reference citation. If the advances are minimally incremental, indicate the same.
Implications for Patient Care
Authors are also requested to list the implications for patient care on the abbreviated title page, describing how the study results can be useful in patient care (6). Depending on the type of study, there may be no implications. If so, the author should have indicated the same on the abbreviated title page. Reviewers should evaluate the implications for patient care in the same manner as for advances in knowledge.
Specific Comments
A review of each section of the manuscript should then follow. Indicating the manuscript page number and paragraph to which a comment applies is helpful (alternatively, indicating the line number, if provided, is helpful). The reviewer should offer specific suggestions for improvement, mention any concerns or disagreements with statements made and the reason for disagreement, and indicate any items that are essential but missing from the sections of the manuscript.
Abstract.—The Abstract should be read after the full manuscript has been evaluated, to determine if the abstract includes the essential information in each of its sections. Is the purpose of the study clearly articulated and the same as at the end of the introduction? Is it clearly stated that the study is prospective ("to prospectively") or retrospective ("to retrospectively")? Does the Materials and Methods section indicate appropriate institutional review board (ethics committee) approval, informed consent, and related information as in the text; the number of patients (and age and sex information as well); the various groups, including controls; the procedures performed; and the specifics of evaluation (including statistical analyses performed)? Are specific data given in the Results section, along with results of any statistical evaluations performed? Is the conclusion warranted on the basis of the data? For animal or phantom studies, are the corresponding appropriate items of information given in the sections of the abstract? Last, are there any inconsistencies within the abstract itself or between the abstract and the text, particularly with regard to numeric data? There should also be consistency between the abstract and the text in that information found in the various sections of the text should be located in the same sections of the abstract.
Introduction.—This section of the manuscript should typically not exceed one and a half double-spaced typescript pages and should not include an extensive review of the literature. Does the author present a logical case for why the study was undertaken? Are appropriate references included? Does the author clearly state the hypothesis being investigated and the purpose of the study at the end of the introduction? Is the purpose the same as that in the abstract? Is it clearly stated that the study is prospective or retrospective? Is there misplaced information that belongs in another section of the manuscript (authors sometimes state what was done or include results)?
Materials and Methods.—Rarely should this section of the manuscript exceed four to five double-spaced typescript pages. If appropriate, is disclosure information provided (see our Publication Information for Authors guidelines)? For studies involving humans, were institutional review board (ethics committee) approval and patient informed consent (or waiver for retrospective studies) obtained and so indicated in the first paragraph? For studies performed in the United States, is there a statement regarding compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act? For studies involving animals, is there indication in the first paragraph that approval of the institutional animal care committee was obtained?
Has the patient group been fully defined (age, sex, inclusion and exclusion criteria, consecutive or random selection)? Have the control patients or volunteers been similarly defined? If healthy volunteers are controls, what is the evidence for "healthy?" Is there a logical presentation of the total number of participants and the division into various groups and is the rationale for that division clear? Is there a clear description of the procedures performed so that the study can be repeated by others (imaging equipment used, technical imaging parameters, images obtained, other procedures)? Are appropriate corresponding items of information given for animal or phantom studies?
Do the authors indicate specifically what was evaluated and how the evaluations were performed (blinded or unblinded to other information, time sequencing to avoid recall bias, random ordering, one author vs one of several authors vs more than one author with readings performed in consensus or independently, and method for resolution of discrepancies)? Are the statistical methods clearly defined? If appropriate for the manuscript, is there a succinct but adequate description of any theoretical considerations or proposed models?
Have the authors included in Materials and Methods all items evaluated and for which they present results in the Results section? Subtitles do help organize the Materials and Methods section and provide additional clarity. Are subtitles used and appropriate? Is there misplaced information that belongs in another section of the manuscript (authors sometimes include results in Materials and Methods or information more appropriate for the Discussion section)?
Results.—Rarely should this section of the manuscript exceed four double-spaced typescript pages. Have the authors presented results for all the items they evaluated in Materials and Methods? Are the results presented in logical sequence on the basis of the information obtained? Are subtitles used in concert with those in Materials and Methods? Do the authors give results for their statistical evaluations and the significance of the same? Are numerators and denominators provided for percentages, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value either in the text or in the tables? If tables and figures are included, do the authors present the most important features in the text and the specifics in the tables (text and tables or figures should not be mere repetitions of each other)? If tables are not included, should they be included to help organize the data and decrease the length of the text? Is there misplaced information that belongs in another section of the manuscript (authors sometimes introduce Materials and Methods information or interpret results [appropriate for the Discussion, not for Results]).
There should be consistency between Materials and Methods and Results in that all items noted as being evaluated in Materials and Methods should have results presented in the Results section. For all results given in the Results section, there should be corresponding information in Materials and Methods indicating that those items were evaluated.
Discussion.—Rarely should this section of the manuscript exceed four to five double-spaced typescript pages. Have the authors clearly stated the pertinent new findings gleaned from their study and the appropriate conclusions? Are the conclusions supported by the data? Have the authors avoided a mere repetition of results? Have the authors avoided substantial repetition of information already given in the introduction section of the manuscript? Have they avoided presentation of an extensive review of the topic and instead presented how their results and conclusions relate to other relevant studies? In short, is the Discussion focused and does it give the important findings in the context of existing knowledge?
Is there a discussion of the limitations of the study and future work to be performed? Have the authors clearly linked their conclusions with the purpose of the study? If the authors present new hypotheses or speculations, are they warranted and clearly identified as such? Are any given recommendations appropriate and based on the study?
For animal or other nonhuman experimental studies, has a final paragraph on potential future practical applications been included? Is there misplaced information that belongs in another section of the text (eg, authors sometimes give additional results) or that should be eliminated (eg, recent experience with other ongoing investigations that are not part of the study being reported)?
Appendix.—Have detailed background information, extensive mathematical derivations, and extensive statistical analyses been placed in an Appendix, with reference to the same in the appropriate sections of the text? If not, should items included elsewhere in the text be placed in one or more appendices?
References.—Are they listed in the order in which they are cited in the text? Do they adhere to our guidelines regarding required information? Are they excessive or outdated? Have important references been omitted, especially those that are relevant to the authors' work? (Reviewers typically perform online searches before reviewing a manuscript to ensure they are as up to date as possible with what has been published on a given topic.) Have the authors misquoted or incorrectly cited references in support of a statement they have made? (Such information might have already been mentioned by the reviewer when critiquing another section of the manuscript where the reference is cited.)
Tables.—Are the tables needed to display the data? Do they merely repeat the text, in which case they can be eliminated or the text can be modified to mention only the most important features? Are all abbreviations explained? Are numerators and denominators provided if not given in the text (see Results)? Is a title provided for each table?
Figures.—Do the captions clearly state the important features being shown? Are all labels found on the illustrations also mentioned in the caption? Conversely, are the features mentioned in the caption also labeled on the illustrations? Are the type of image, whether or not contrast material was used, and the plane of the image given? Is pulse sequence information included for magnetic resonance images? Are the stain and original magnification given for photomicrographs? Are there too many or redundant illustrations? If so, which can be eliminated? Are there some tables or figures that may be published in Radiology Online rather than in print with notation of the same in the printed version of the article?
|
WHAT TO DO AND NOT TO DO |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONESSENTIAL COMPONENTSWHAT TO DO AND...References |
|---|
1. Do inform me of any biases or conflicts of interest you may have as a reviewer regarding the manuscript, as it may then be appropriate for you not to perform the review. We remind the reviewer about conflicts of interest when a manuscript is made available in the reviewer's queue.
2. Because we use our database system for identifying potential reviewers (7), and since the peer reviewer is sent the manuscript abstract when queried about his or her availability to review the manuscript, it is unlikely that a manuscript will be inappropriately matched with a peer reviewer. However, if you determine that a colleague may be better suited for review of the manuscript, you should first notify the editorial office of the same so that the manuscript can be assigned to that colleague for review.
3. Do not share the contents of the manuscript with anyone. However, it is permissible to ask a colleague with special expertise in a subject matter area of the manuscript to assist with the review, provided he or she understands that the contents of the manuscript are strictly confidential and are not to be shared with others.
4. If you print the manuscript for the purpose of expediting your review procedure (marking areas that need improvement), please destroy the copy once your review has been submitted to us by means of our online system.
5. Do not contact the authors for clarification of any items in the manuscript should you, for some reason, have been able to identify the authors despite the blinded title page you received and other blinding performed in the manuscript. See item 1 above and item 6 below.
6. Do not speculate in the comments for authors as to who the authors of the manuscript might be. If you consider that your knowledge of the likely authors of the manuscript, whether by speculation on your part or otherwise, may cause you to be biased with regard to acceptance or rejection, do not review the manuscript. Notify the editorial office immediately so we can reassign the manuscript.
7. Do notify the editorial office if you are aware of a publication that is substantially similar to the manuscript you are reviewing (eg, number of patients, methods, textual information). This will allow us to evaluate the possibility of redundant publication (see our Publication Information for Authors).
8. Just as the reviewer is blinded to the author's identity, so is the author blinded to the reviewer's identity. There are differences of opinion regarding blinding of the authors' and reviewers' identities (8–10). Since we currently subscribe to blinding of both in our review process, do not identify yourself in the comments for the authors.
9. Do not use derogatory statements. These alienate authors and serve no constructive purpose. In fact, they can be destructive, especially for those early in their academic careers. Instead, offer a series of comments that point out the deficiencies and indicate how improvements may possibly be made.
10. Do number your individual comments consecutively for the entire review beginning with the Major Strengths section, rather than numbering the comments consecutively within each section of the review.
11. Do not include multiple comments in a single paragraph. List each comment separately with consecutive numbering of all comments.
12. Do not send a one-sentence review such as "This manuscript contains flaws that are too numerous to list." Imagine if your manuscript were rejected on the basis of such a review. Such a review is of no help to the authors or the Editor. Instead, be specific and list several of the more important flaws. Similarly, it is uncommon that a study is in need of no revisions should you recommend acceptance.
13. Do not focus your review on grammatical and spelling errors (our manuscript editors will perform this task), unless such errors might cause misinterpretation of the meaning apparently intended by the authors. Do not focus on the appropriateness of the statistical analyses performed unless you are knowledgeable about them, as statisticians will review statistical aspects of the manuscript.
14. Do advise the Editor if companion manuscripts (eg, parts 1 and 2) can be combined into one. Alternatively, does each companion manuscript stand on its own, and does the content of each merit a separate manuscript? It has been my experience that most companion manuscripts contain substantial redundancies, and thus I typically encourage consolidation into one manuscript.
15. Do check for inconsistencies in the numeric data (within a section of the manuscript and between sections, between the text and the abstract, between the text and the tables and figures, within a table, and within a figure).
16. Do check for contradictory statements throughout the manuscript.
17. Do substantiate generic statements you make (eg, "the methods are flawed," "the authors have introduced bias," "the data have been misinterpreted"), by giving specific information.
18. Do offer references to document your comments that relate to the authors' results disagreeing with the published literature, if not already done so by the authors, or to the results contained in the manuscript having already been published.
19. Do not encourage authors to provide information that is extraneous to the study, despite your own interest in the same.
20. Do indicate if you consider the subject matter of the manuscript inappropriate for our readership and state why.
21. Do indicate your overall impression regarding acceptance or rejection when you complete the Reviewer Evaluation form intended for this purpose. Offer specific comments regarding acceptance or rejection only in the section for the Editor. Make sure your recommendation is substantiated by the comments you provide in the review intended for the authors.
22. Do use the Reviewer Evaluation form and the Comments for the Editor section to indicate if a rejected manuscript has potential for publication if revised and resubmitted. If included in the comments for the authors instead, such information can be misleading for the authors who might then follow your suggestions, although the Editor may have rejected the manuscript without offering the option for resubmission in view of the comments of all reviewers and the evaluation performed in the editorial office.
23. If you wish to communicate comments intended for the Editor only, do so in the section provided for the same.
24. Last, do read the review you have prepared as if you were the author receiving it. Are the comments derogatory? Is it clear that the reviewer understood the study and made suggestions for improvement of deficiencies? Or has the reviewer made generic statements without providing specific information?
Peer review is an essential component of the final product that is our monthly journal. The reviewer's expertise in the subject matter and research methods and his or her knowledge of the literature help ensure that the manuscript under evaluation contains up-to-date information and is appropriately focused on the new information contained therein. We hope the above guidelines are of help to both our reviewers and potential authors, and we welcome any feedback they would like to provide. Last, we thank our reviewers for their outstanding service both to the peer-review process and to Radiology.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPINTRODUCTIONESSENTIAL COMPONENTSWHAT TO DO AND...References |
|---|
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]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
