| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
From the Editor |
1
Index terms: Editorials • Radiology (journal)
My intent in writing this editorial is threefold: to inform our authors of the steps through which their manuscripts progress, to help our authors understand why the first decision and subsequent decision stages require the time that they do, and to inform our readers of the extensive and intensive processes to which manuscripts are submitted before reaching the stage of publication.
The evaluation and processing of a manuscript submitted to Radiology involve numerous steps before the stage of publication. Below you will find an overview of our procedures. Although this overview contains a considerable amount of information, authors should realize that it is not possible to address every variation or circumstance that might arise when dealing with our large volume of yearly submissions.
Manuscript Receipt and Review
As noted in our "Publication Information for Authors" guidelines, a recently revised version of which first appeared in the September 1999 issue of Radiology, manuscripts of original research, technical developments, and case reports are to be submitted to our Oak Brook, Illinois, office. They are reviewed by our staff during the log-in process 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 authors are contacted and asked to send those required items. Once such items have been received, the manuscript is assigned a number and receipt of the manuscript is acknowledged by e-mail (if you have provided us with an address) or by routine mail.
The manuscript categorization terms you submitted are entered into our computer to generate a list of potential reviewers. Typically, two reviewers are selected, based on those who are available and whose reviewer categorization terms most closely match the manuscript categorization terms submitted by the authors, both reviewers and authors having selected the terms from a common list. Before being mailed for review, your manuscript is perused and blinded for items that may reveal the origin of the manuscript (eg, name of institution in text, references identified in text as prior publications of the authors, name of author included in text). This can be 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.
The third copy of your submitted manuscript is forwarded to the Radiology Editorial Office in Richmond, Virginia. This copy may be sent to another reviewer if we learn that one of the original two reviewers is unavailable for manuscript review (most reviewers notify us in advance when they will be unavailable, but unforeseen circumstances do arise).
We are fortunate that Radiology has in its database some 1,500 reviewers. Most of our reviewers complete their reviews within the allotted 3-week time period. Our computer system identifies for us those reviewers who have exceeded the return date for their reviews, allowing us to notify them. Manuscripts with inadequate reviews are sent for additional reviewer input, and the authors are notified so as to alert them of the delay in the evaluation process.
Manuscript Decision
Once all reviews have been received in the Richmond office, our staff will prepare the manuscript for further evaluation by the Editor or Deputy Editor. The Editor receives each manuscript for which the reviewers are in agreement as to the recommendation to accept or reject the submission. The Editor reads the reviewers' comments and recommendations, evaluates the manuscript, and renders a decision. For manuscripts for which the reviewers disagree as to acceptance or rejection, the Deputy Editors will review the submission and provide additional critique that includes a recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript. This critique is taken into account, along with the reviewers' comments and the Editor's own evaluation of the manuscript, when he later renders his decision.
When rendering a decision on a manuscript, the Editor avoids looking at the names of the authors or the institution of origin of the manuscript. All manuscript decisions are made by the Editor after careful consideration of the reviewers' and Deputy Editors' comments and decision recommendations and after his own evaluation of the manuscript. The Editor will discuss items of concern with the Deputy Editors, who provide invaluable input into the process, and will seek further clarification from the reviewers as needed. This process whereby the Editor makes all manuscript decisions consumes additional time, compared to that in which one of several possible individuals makes the decision to accept or reject a manuscript. The Editor, nevertheless, has chosen to proceed in this fashion as he believes it offers authors a greater consistency in the decision-making process. At the time of this writing, the average time to first decision for all submissions is 47 days.
Radiology uses three decision categories—Reject, Under Consideration, or Accept.
Reject.—For a manuscript that has been rejected, only the images (as noted in the "Publication Information for Authors" guidelines) will be returned to the corresponding author with an accompanying letter notifying the author of the decision. Reviewers' comments are also included. Occasionally, the Editor will notify the authors that he will allow resubmission of the manuscript if the authors are able to fully respond to all of the reviewers' concerns. This offer to resubmit the manuscript is made when the Editor considers there is potential for publication but when 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 methodology). Authors who are offered this opportunity for resubmission are under no obligation to resubmit the manuscript. If the manuscript is resubmitted, it is assigned a new number and is sent for review as for any new submission. Authors are requested to send these resubmissions to the Richmond office where the Editor will assign the reviewers. Typically, the Editor will choose three reviewers, representing a combination of those who reviewed the original manuscript and new reviewers. This combination offers the Editor two perspectives—whether the manuscript has substantially improved (from the original reviewers) and a "fresh" review (from the new reviewers).
Under Consideration.—The manuscript that has been placed in the category of "Under Consideration" has been neither accepted nor rejected but shows sufficient merit so that the opportunity for a major revision is offered to the authors. Authors offered this opportunity are also under no obligation to resubmit the manuscript. They are cautioned in the decision letter from the Editor 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 resubmitted, the manuscript is sent to the Richmond office where the Editor will assign for review the two revised copies submitted by the authors. Typically, the manuscript is returned to the original reviewers to determine if their requests for substantial revisions have been satisfactorily addressed. While this places an additional burden on our reviewers, many have welcomed this opportunity. It represents an educational process for them, as several have so informed me. Reviewers learn why some changes they have requested are not made (authors indicate their reasons with substantiation for the same) and learn of new information provided by the authors. Reviewers receive a copy of the authors' response letter and the annotated revision to aid them in the process. As for the original review, the identity of the origin of the manuscript is not made known to the reviewers. Should one of the original reviewers not be available, or if the Editor considers a "fesh" perspective is needed, a new reviewer will also be assigned the manuscript. Reviewers are given the routine 3-week time period to accomplish their reviews. Thus, authors who resubmit a manuscript in the Under Consideration category should expect the review cycle to be similar to that for a new submission. Typically, the Editor will change the decision of Under Consideration to either Accept or Reject once he evaluates the revision along with the reviewers' comments and those provided by the Deputy Editors (see Manuscript Revision below).
Accept.—The decision to "accept" is made with the understanding that the manuscript will be satisfactorily revised by the authors. While satisfactory revision occurs in most instances, on rare occasion an accepted manuscript subsequently will be rejected because a revision considered satisfactory by both the authors and the Editorial Office cannot be produced.
Manuscript Revision
Manuscripts that have been accepted or placed in the category of Under Consideration are carefully reviewed by our Richmond staff for items that do not follow our guidelines or that have not been submitted with the manuscript. The most common such items include: copyright form incompletely filled out or obsolete form submitted, permission letters not obtained from individuals to be listed in the Acknowledgments section, incorrect mounting of figures, figure captions not provided on the individual pages with the corresponding figures, collective list of figure captions not provided, all authors not included on the author contributions list, and summary statement not identified or not taken directly from the text. Having completed this review, a staff member prepares a letter that includes: a request for the missing items, revisions requested by the Editor, and copies of the revisions requested by the reviewers (those to be addressed are circled by the Editor). The letter states the format for submission of the revision. It is especially important that authors follow these directions carefully. Often, the annotated copy is prepared incorrectly by the author, necessitating both our request for a correctly prepared copy and 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. The Editor exercises this option when, for example, change is rapidly occurring in the subject matter being reported by the authors, so as to ensure that the manuscript is up-to-date regarding current investigations in that area. If a revision has not been received within 10 months after requested, the file is closed and appropriate items are returned to the authors. If the author then submits a revision, it is treated as a new manuscript and undergoes review as for any new manuscript.
All first revisions are carefully reviewed by our Deputy Editors, whether for an initially accepted manuscript or one that is initially placed in the decision category of Under Consideration. For the latter, their review is accomplished after the manuscript has been returned from the reviewers (see Under Consideration above). On occasion, the Editor may send the first revision of an accepted manuscript to a reviewer who has requested to see that revision or, alternatively, to a reviewer when he considers additional evaluation is needed. The Deputy Editors check that all requested revisions have been made or, if not made, that the authors have provided an adequate reason for not having done so. During this process, the Deputy Editors are themselves reviewing the manuscripts and offer comments for any additional needed revisions. The Deputies make their recommendation as to whether the manuscripts should be accepted or rejected (in the case of the manuscripts that are in the initial decision category of Under Consideration) and whether the manuscripts, regardless of decision category, are satisfactory as revised or need further revision. The Editor reviews the revision, along with the Deputy Editor's recommendation and those comments, if any, provided by the reviewers. He then renders a decision of "accept" or "reject" (for manuscripts that are in the Under Consideration category), and, regardless of the initial decision category, "accept as revised," or "accept with a request for a second revision." A second revision is typically needed when the authors have not made all the requested revisions, if the authors have not satisfactorily explained why they have chosen not to make some requested revisions, or if the changes made by the authors raise additional concerns on the part of the reviewers, Deputy Editor, or Editor.
If appropriate for the subject matter, a first revision may be sent to our statistical consultants or those knowledgeable in cost-effectiveness or decision-modeling. Thus, a second revision may be requested if items of concern are raised by these individuals. It therefore behooves authors to seek consultation from individuals knowledgeable in these areas before they embark on their study to ensure appropriate study design, data collection, and data analysis. Our consultants will review those changes made by the authors when the second revision is submitted. Otherwise, the second and any subsequent revisions are evaluated by the Deputy Editors and the Editor as for the first revision.
Manuscript Issue Assignment
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 based on the date of the most recent revision. Thus, it is intuitive that the greater the number of revisions (one, two, three, etc), the greater the time from original submission to publication of the manuscript.
A given issue of Radiology is assembled several months in advance of its publication. The first step begins when the Editor again reviews the manuscript and crops the images that compose each figure array. Each image is cropped to maximize the size of the area of interest and to include enough surrounding area for orientation of and recognition by the reader. The components of each figure are arranged in a vertical or horizontal array by the Editor to facilitate correlation of findings by the reader. The process of figure cropping is more efficiently performed when authors follow the guidelines given in the "Publication Information for Authors." The manuscript then undergoes a final review by the Assistant to the Editor in preparation for forwarding to our manuscript editors and production staff at the RSNA office in Oak Brook. A letter is sent to the corresponding author notifying him or her regarding the same, requesting address verification, and indicating the time frame during which to expect receipt of the copyedited version of the manuscript.
Manuscript Processing in the Oak Brook Office
When your manuscript reaches the Oak Brook office, it is reviewed by the staff to determine a preliminary page count. The images are carefully evaluated for final sizing, layout, and reproducibility. Labeling is accomplished if authors have not done so themselves but have provided overlays for the same. Our manuscript editors edit the manuscripts to conform with Radiology style and according to widely accepted conventions of copyediting. Copies of the edited manuscript and figure proofs are sent to both the authors and the Editor. It is the responsibility of the authors to answer all queries made by the manuscript editors and production staff and to ensure that the final product is accurate as edited. The Editor 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 transferred for printing.
The processing of your manuscript in our 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 respond to queries from our Oak Brook office and to quickly review the manuscript proofs once received. 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.
I hope I have succeeded in my threefold intent: to inform our authors of the steps through which their manuscripts progress, to help our authors understand why the first decision and subsequent decision stages require the time that they do, and to inform our readers of the extensive and intensive processes to which manuscripts are submitted before reaching the stage of publication. While the overall process can at times be frustrating for authors who are anxious to see their work in print as soon as possible, I do believe that most authors are appreciative of this process. My evidence for the same is the information I receive from the authors in the letters that accompany their revisions.
I recognize that the existence of Radiology primarily relates to the authors who submit their manuscripts, the reviewers who review them, and the readers who subscribe to the Journal. All three form an inseparable unit, and all three should feel free to contact me if they have questions.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. V. Proto Radiology 2007: Evaluating and Processing Your Manuscript for Publication Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 3 - 6. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. V. Proto Radiology 2007: The Year Ahead Radiology, January 1, 2007; 242(1): 3 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
