For Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers

Article types

The journal encourages the submission of review papers. These reviews should focus either on educational aspects on the use of imaging criteria and findings in clinical and research aspects (Educational Reviews), or provide an overview on emerging techniques or state-of-the-art topics with an up-to-date and innovative approach. They should serve the radiological and scientific community and allow its members to have access to the best evidence-based knowledge and to foresee the impact of new approaches within the healthcare cycle (Critical Reviews).
These review papers do not follow the structure of Original Articles (Introduction/Material &Methods/Results/Discussion), but are organised following their main key points described in the objectives.

 

Review Checklist

 

  • What are the major messages of the paper?
  • Will the information provided in and by the article be of interest to the medical community?
  • Is the paper innovative and of practical value?
  • Does the organisation of the paper follow the main aspects described in the objectives?
  • Did the authors provide information about relevant professional experience which relates to the cases they evaluated?
  • Are there any statements that could lead to misconceptions?
  • Do the figures aid the description of the topic? Can they be improved?
  • Does each figure add value to the article?
  • Did the authors provide recent references and did they cite correctly?

Reviewer Classifications

Classifications Updated November 2018

Decision Making Criteria

Please consider both, qualitative and quantitative criteria, when making a decision:

Qualitative criteria

Any methodological question, potential misunderstanding, major discrepancy between different parts of the manuscript should qualify for a “Reject & Resubmit” decision; changes suggested for better understanding, easier reading, or better connection of the data and the text might qualify for a revision.

Please consider the following qualities of your report:

  • Give specific instructions, not general comments (example: “The results are not reproducible from what is described” is better than “This paper contains poor methods”)
  • Give constructive criticism/suggestions to improve the work.
  • Distinguish minor changes (improving the manuscript) from major issues (critical for publication).
  • Keep your tone fair and respectful.
  • Do not include your suggestion whether the paper should be published or not – this is the decision of the Editor-in-Chief, who will diligently consider the comments and criticisms of both reviewers.
  • Do not sign the review with your name as we have a double-blind review process.
  • Do not correct language errors, but let the Editor-in-Chief know if an article is poorly written and the scientific content might be misunderstood.

Quantitative criteria

If there are multiple minor points of criticism, this can turn a minor revision into a major one. Please keep in mind that “Accept” is usually not an appropriate suggestion for a first revision, and that a manuscript should be rejected if changes would, most likely, result in a new design and methodology.

Please consider the following manuscript criteria:

  • The title should be informative and, preferably, convey the conclusion of the study and not just be a neutral description.
  • The abstract needs to be in line with the main text and attract the attention of the reader.
  • The introduction should explain why the work is important and provide a clear hypothesis and objective.
  • Materials and methods should provide information to reproduce the study, and the study design should be in line with the research question.
  • The number of patients or measurements should be high enough to be significant.
  • The results need to correlate with the questions posed in materials and methods.
  • The discussion is meant to interpret the results and should contain essential findings, critical discussion, limitations, relevance and conclusions.
  • Images and tables should reflect the presented findings and results.

Ethical and scientific standards

Our journal adheres to the current international standards in scientific publishing. We follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, and suggest to all scientists to be familiar with the following available guidelines and checklists:

 

  • CONSORT – Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
  • PRISMA – Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
  • MOOSE – Meta-analyses of observational studies [pdf download]
  • STARD – Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
  • RATS – Qualitative research review guidelines
  • EQUATOR Network – Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research
  • MIBBI – Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations

Information about CME

Reviewers can claim CME with the European Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (UEMS) for performed reviewing activities carried out within the scope of editorial procedures for journals indexed in PubMed.

CME can be claimed for reviews performed from January 1, 2017 onwards. The application requires a one-time fee of 20€ (VAT excluded) and a confirmation from the editor of the journal (letter or email including date of review).

For more information, visit the website of the European Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (UEMS).