RadiographyRadiography

Peer ReviewPeer Review- make your contribution- make your contribution

Dr Pauline Reeves Dr Pauline Reeves Associate Editor (Clinical Imaging)Associate Editor (Clinical Imaging)

Overview

– Peer review– What to look for in an article– Ways to approach an article for review– Use of a checklist– Making constructive comments– Writing comments– Your decision; accept, revise, reject – Submitting your comments

Peer review

• Subjecting an author's scholarly work to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field.

• Used by editors to select and screen manuscripts submitted for publication

• Aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline.

• Maintains the overall quality of the journal

The Process

All communication takes place on-line in the Elsevier Editorial System (EES)

• Submission is assigned to an Editor by Editor-in-chief • Reviewer receives the invitation by e-mail• Respond to an invitation • The Reviewer logs on to the site using the username and

password or hotlinks provided in the e-mail and agrees or declines to review.

• If the Reviewer agrees, s/he reads the manuscript and logs on to EES to submit a review.

• The Reviewer types comments to the Authors and Editor, selects a Recommendation, rates the manuscript and submits the review to the journal office.

Radiography Home PageRadiography Home Page

http://ees.elsevier.com/radiography http://ees.elsevier.com/radiography/ /

Types of contribution, word lengths and illustrations

1. Original full length research papers– Approximately 2,500-3000 words.

2. Review Article Section covering:a. Radiotherapy and Oncology

b. Clinical Imaging

c. Education

3. Letters to the Editor (500 words)4. Book Reviews (300 words)5. Case reports (800 words)6. Technical notes (1,000 words)7. Guest Editorials: These are short topical pieces (approx 1000 words)

What to look for

• Compliance with Instructions to Authors

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623068/authorinstructions

What to look for;Type of submission

• Full length research paper QualitativeQuantitative

• Review• Case study• Guest Editorial• Technical note

What to look for;Overall structure

• Abstract• Introduction• Method• Results• Conclusion

What to look for;Structure

– Logical & organised – Repetition should be minimised / avoided– The ‘elements’ should comply with what is

expected– e.g. Is abstract in the expected form?– Concise (2500-3000 words)– Results should be concise and clear– Graphics / tables used appropriately, not

over-used

What to look for;English

– Is important and you can ask for English to be improved

– Look beyond poor English – is the article ‘OK’?

– It should be spell checked & grammar checked

– Good sentence and paragraph structure

– Typographical errors should be avoided

• It is the AUTHOR’S responsibility to get the English right (not the Editors)

What to look for;Content

– Is it related to the aims/scope of the journal?

– Is the rationale for the paper clear?

– Is the method valid and reliable?– Are statistical tests justified and explained?– Is the discussion more than a simple

description of the results?– Do the conclusions arise directly from the

work?

What to look for;Content

– Is there adequate attention to detail?

– Are the limitations of the work acknowledged?

– Are references adequate in number and quality, and presented correctly?

– Does it add to the existing body of knowledge?

– Is the ‘new’ information related to the existing body of knowledge?

– Is there a take home message?

What to look for;Plagiarism and ethics

– Look for plagiarism – has this been published previously?

– For studies involving humans has ethics approval been sought?

What to look for

Helsinki Declaration (http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm)

• World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki

• Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects

• 2008: Sixth revision, 59th Meeting, Seoul

Ways to approach your article• Work on screen (pdf)

– Make notes on paper– Make notes in word processor

• Print off hardcopy– Make notes onto it in [red] pen– Make notes in word processor

• Work on the paper somewhere quiet

• Work within the timescale you agreed with the Editor - 2 weeks

Use of a checklist

• Topic– Aligned to the aims and scope of the journal– Important to the profession– Originality

• English– Standard– Grammatical errors– Spelling errors– Typographical errors– Acronyms are defined adequately– Is logical and tells a story #

Use of a checklist• Title

– Indicates clearly and concisely the topic• Key words

– Are suitable considering the topic area– No more than 6 and don’t just repeat the title

• Abstract– States concisely the purpose of the work– Accurately describes the method used– Summarises the results– Indicates the conclusions

Introduction– Defines the problem concisely and states purpose– Presents relevant background information /

literature

• Method (if relevant)– Explains how it was done and why– Adequately supported by evidence, such as

literature– Reproducible– Valid / reliable– Ethical issues appropriately addressed

• Results– Clear and concise with appropriate use of

graphics / figures• Discussion

– Discusses the findings within themselves– Relates the findings to the existing body of

knowledge– Develops arguments and theories from evidence– Discusses the implications of the work to practice– Suggests ‘what next’

• Conclusion– Arise directly from the material debated in the work– Reaches valid conclusions, which could be tempered

by limitations of the work– Suggests new directions

• References– Are timely / historically significant– Are sufficient in quantity to support the work– Are adequate in quality, normally being

predominantly derived from peer-reviewed forums– Cited correctly

• Footnotes-may be used occasionally to clarify/ define a point

Common pitfalls

• Badly written abstract• Inadequate or absent introduction• Raising questions which are then not

addressed• Inaccurate content• Poor sentence structure• Missing references• Jumping from idea to idea• Making assumptions• New facts/results appearing in discussion • Inadequate or absent conclusion

Making constructive comments

• Helpful to the author• Not be patronising• Clear and concise• If possible, indicate how ‘the problem’ might

be addressed• Don’t be idealistic, no research is perfect• Remember the work is now history so it is too

late to suggest an alternative approach

Writing comments

A rejection

– This could have been an interesting piece of work ….

– It was pleasing to see that there are …– However, there were some major flaws in

… and the write up lacked …. , which made it impossible to recommend this article for publication.

Writing comments

General comments

– This is an interesting and topical case study that addresses a current area of interest in radiography education.  I believe it is suitable for publication but requires revision to address some minor issues. I have the following comments … (there were 20 minor points)

Writing comments

• Specific comments– Accepting the work when corrections are made

(revise). Example detailed feedback includes1. Methodology, para 5, line 6 - who is 'the researcher'?

Perhaps this could be replaced with 'to a member of the research team'.

2. Methodology, para 6 - this is a single sentence paragraph. Can it be incorporated into another?

3. Methodology, para 7, line 2 - here you use 'X-ray' but in other places 'x-ray'. Please be consistent.

4. Methodology, para 7, line 8 - please consider replacing the word 'would' with may'.

– There were almost 100 [constructive] comments to this feedback …

Accept, revise or reject?

• Your final advice to the Editor– Accept ‘as is’– Revise

(fairly minor comments)– Reject, but offer resubmission

Major comments– Outright reject

• Poor work / or not within the scope of the journal

Your commentsYour comments

• Word processed, edited, spell and grammar corrected

• Advise typing in word and then pasting into the boxes

• Submit Via the web-sitehttp://ees.elsevier.com/

radiography/ #

Performance statistics

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009Articles Received*

130 113 106 89 109

Articles Accepted

71 52 60 60 50

Articles Withdrawn

4 5 4 9 31

Articles Rejected

55 46 43 25 38

Rejection Rate

44% 47% 42% 29% 43%

Radiography: Some StatisticsItem Type Number of articles

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009

Case Report 5 8 9 8 5Full Length Article

7584 71 58 62

Guest Editorial 1 2 3 3 3Review Article 19 15 12 12 28Special Issue 19 0 6 0 8Technical Note 5 3 3 4 3Letter to the Editor

6 1 2 4 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0

Why do it?

• Improves your cv• A method of CPD• ‘Gives back’ to the professional

community

Reviewers needed

Reviewers are particularly needed with the following interests/ expertise;

– Gastroenterology

– MRI (especially spectroscopy)