RSNA Visiting Editors Program

1
RSNA Visiting Editors Program
Sponsored by the RSNA Board of Directors
William W. Olmsted, MD Editor, RadioGraphics

• Anthony V Proto, MD Editor, Radiology

2

• Idea presented to RSNA Board of Directors
• Funding approved by RSNA Board of Directors
• 3 Year pilot program, 3 year extension
• Your evaluation is important!
• Discuss the missions of Radiologyand
  RadioGraphics
• Manuscript preparation, review, decision
• Common problems with manuscripts
• Opportunity to ask questions

3
(No Transcript)
4

• Circulation 40,000 worldwide
• Issues 12/year, PB, MD
• Submissions 150-200 per month
• Reviewers Database Selection
• Decision Time Average of 34 days
• Decision Types ACC, REJ, UCO

5

• Overall acceptance rate 19
• Major manuscripts 14
• Meeting papers 18
• Non-meeting papers 13
• ACC varies with submission
• North American submissions 36
• International submissions 64

6

• Imaging Subspecialty Areas
• Radiation Oncology
• Medical Physics
• Technical Developments
• Letters to the Editor
• Interludes
• Case Reports
• SII, DXP

• SOA - HID
• REV - SRV
• VWP - CWK
• PER - HPR
• Editorials
• Book Reviews
• PRA - AOR
• SSM - REF

7

• Radiology seeks to publish the best of the
  submissions it receives regarding imaging,
  imaging related, radiation oncology, and medical
  physics research that is conducted worldwide and
  to offer, at the same time, information that is
  of practical value to its readers.

8

• Good science first and foremost

• Well conceived, designed, conducted study
• Provides new, relevant information - CE
• Addresses diagnostic, therapeutic, imaging
  related problems found in daily practice
• Similarly assembled studies addressing other
  issues relevant to our readers

9
TOPIC

• Area in which you are interested
• One that is important
• problems faced in daily practice
• basic investigations practical applications
• understanding imaging findings
• clarification of misconceptions
• Focused - define parameters
• Research the literature

10
INTRODUCTION

• Why should I bother to read this?
• Will I learn something new?
• Is the topic important?
• pertinent prior studies
• What is the hypothesis?
• Why did you perform the study?
• clearly state the purpose

11
MATERIALS METHODS

• Descriptions should allow others the ability to
  reproduce your work
• Subjects - selection criteria, stages of disease
  (early, late), localized/diffuse disease,
  procedures performed (effect of procedure)
• Institutional Review Board, Informed Consent
• Helsinki principles, NIH guidelines
• Compliance with HIPAA

12
MATERIALS METHODS

• Controls - disease simulators (specificity)
• Interpret the presence and the absence of
  findings without prior knowledge from other
  imaging studies, utilize a grading system

13
MATERIALS METHODS

• More than one observer, interobserver and
  intraobserver variations (validity)
• Reference standard as proof surgery, biopsy,
  histology, other accepted standards
• Document absence of disease by follow-up

14
MATERIALS METHODS

• Statistical Evaluations
• tests utilized
• why chosen
• Wise to solicit advice of a biostatistician
• before data collection commences
• many variables
• adequate number of observations
• statisticians review manuscripts

• on what data
• to determine what

15
RESULTS

• Be certain to report on all items listed in
  MATERIALS METHODS
• Do not report results for items not listed in
  MATERIALS METHODS
• Give specific information, not generalities
• Be certain that your data are consistent
• 69 patients - - - - 18 15 17 24

16
RESULTS

• Data given should support conclusions
• Keep your focus--avoid other recent examples
• Lengthy, numerous paragraphs of results are
  tedious for the reader
• Use Tables for brevity
• Avoid duplication in Tables and text
• Provide results for statistical analyses of the
  data in your study

17
DISCUSSION

• You have obtained the readers interest in the
  INTRODUCTION
• You have presented in MATERIALS METHODS the
  details of the manner in which you have conducted
  your study
• You have given in RESULTS the data and the
  statistical analyses of the same

18
DISCUSSION

• Now the reader wants you to place it all into
  perspective in the DISCUSSION
• Emphasize the conclusions of your study and their
  relation to other publications avoid extraneous
  material (reviews, data, etc.)
• Explain the limitations and any conflicts with
  other studies
• Give relevance of the findings, Practical
  Applications for experimental studies

19
REFERENCES

• List those that are pertinent to your study
• Dont inflate the list with others
• Be certain you have read all that you have listed
  (reviewers read references)
• List them in order of citation in the text
• Follow Publication Information for Authors
  guidelines regarding format

20
ILLUSTRATIONS

• Review Publication Information for Authors
• Show the area of interest
• Label features described in caption (what is
  obvious to you may not be to the reader)
• Submit the highest quality possible
• Submit color only if necessary for message

21
ABSTRACT

• Follow Publication Information for Authors
  guidelines for preparation of ABSTRACT
• Purpose, Materials Methods, Results, and
  Conclusions in 250 words
• Shorter ABSTRACT for Case Reports and
  Technical Developments in 100 words
• Abbreviated version of your manuscript, but it
  does give details

22
COMMON PROBLEMS

• Excessive length of text
• Too many illustrations
• Introduction - purpose not clearly stated
• Materials/Methods - IRB, IC info absent
• Materials/Methods - insufficient detail
• What was done - reproducibility
• Image evaluation procedure

23
COMMON PROBLEMS

• Results - all expected (M/M) are not reported
• Results, Materials/Methods - misplaced
  information
• Discussion - no comparison with other studies
• Discussion - no limitations, relevance
• Discussion - conclusions not supported by data
• Abstract - not enough data
• Overall - many typographical, grammatical errors

24
There are numerous problems with the
publication guidelines for manuscript preparation
not having been followed.

• If the authors cant follow these
  straightforward directions, how careful were they
  in the performance of their study?

25

• The manuscript contains numerous typographical
  and grammatical errors. This lack of attention
  to detail is disturbing and always raises
  questions regarding the attention paid to the
  collection of the data.

26

• The patient is a 40 year old male . . .

Mary Smith Age 52
27

• The manuscript is anemic in data and
  polycythemic in speculation.
• Many of the conclusions are not supported by the
  data.

28

• The manuscript is the authors product and the
  only thing the reviewer sees.

If the authors cannot
be bothered to carefully construct their
manuscript, the reviewer wonders how careful they
are with their research design.
29

• Summary Statement

• One sentence taken from the text

• Guarantor of integrity of entire study
• Study concepts
• Study design
• Literature research
• Clinical studies
• Experimental studies
• Data acquisition

• Data analysis/interpretation
• Statistical analysis
• Manuscript preparation
• Manuscript definition of intellectual content
• Manuscript editing
• Manuscript revision/review
• Manuscript final version approval

30
ICMJE - Authorship

• To be based only on substantial contributions to
• Conception, design OR data acquisition OR data
  analysis, interpretation
• Drafting, critical revision for important
  intellectual content
• Final approval of the version to be published

• Funding acquisition, data collection
  insufficient
• Supervision of research group insufficient

31

• Introduced in November, 2001FTE
• Publication online in advance of print
• 46 weeks earlier than print
• Online date is the publication date

• Radiology Online has a link for

• continuous Publishing
• We publish only the final version
• Peer-reviewed, revised, edited, approved
• We do not publish preliminaryor corrected
  versions

32

• Radiology seeks to publish the best of the
  submissions it receives regarding imaging,
  imaging related, radiation oncology, and medical
  physics research that is conducted worldwide and
  to offer, at the same time, information that is
  of practical value to its readers.

33

• Good science first and foremost

• Well conceived, designed, conducted study
• Provides new, relevant information - CE
• Addresses diagnostic, therapeutic, imaging
  related problems found in daily practice
• Similarly assembled studies addressing other
  issues relevant to our readers

34

• The overall purpose, as I see it, is to
  provide a platform for radiologists to learn from
  each others experiences so that we can provide
  better service to our patients and referring
  physicians. Is it necessary for me to agree with
  every detail published in the journal?

Radiology 1998 208268
35

• Furthermore, is it necessary for me to
  incorporate into my practice every new technique
  described in the journal? The answer to these
  two questions is an emphatic no. Is it
  necessary for me to evaluate the data and
  concepts with objectivity and an open mind? The
  answer to this question is a resounding yes!

Radiology 1998 208268
36
(No Transcript)