Editor's Note 2021: The Year in Review for Radiology.

Abstract

HomeRadiologyVol. 302, No. 3 Next CommunicationsFree AccessFrom the EditorEditor’s Note 2021: The Year in Review for RadiologyDavid A. BluemkeDavid A. BluemkeDavid A. BluemkePublished Online:Jan 4 2022https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.219032MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In The high degree of attention to medical journals during the pandemic has showcased their important contribution to improving human health. For our field, I have long held the opinion that the impact of research in radiology has been underappreciated by the larger field of medicine. Those of us who provide diagnostic imaging services and intervention understand the key role of imaging to patient management. The outstanding performance of the journal Radiology in the past year is reflective of the radiologist’s central role in improving patient health.Our numbers. The basic statistics for Radiology are compelling. In the past year, we had 8.3 million article views by 5.3 million users. These numbers are up by 40%–45% over prepandemic levels in 2019. During the first year of the pandemic in 2020, our submissions spiked to more than 4600 manuscripts. At that time, diagnosis of COVID-19 was a major problem due to defective or inadequate supply of RT-PCR tests. In 2021, we had more than 3200 submissions—only the second time in journal history that annual submissions exceeded 3000 manuscripts.Before the pandemic, in 2019, authorship of our publications was becoming less North American–centric. This trend accelerated during the pandemic. In the past year, North American submissions dropped slightly to about 830 manuscripts. The decline in North American (and European) research submissions has been countered by a greater number of submissions from China. Researchers from China now account for approximately 25% of all submissions to Radiology, compared with 17% for the United States. In 2021, 20% of all publications in Radiology were from authors based in China, indicative of high-quality research.For authors, the time taken for journals to assess their submissions is always too long. The “time to first decision” for articles submitted to Radiology continues to be excellent, at an average of 18 days (compared to 33 days in 2017). Still, the average time does not tell the entire story for Original Research manuscripts. At this journal, when manuscripts receive an initial positive peer review, their research manuscripts are next evaluated by the full editorial board (myself, eight deputy editors, additional editorial board members, and our chief biostatistician, Dr Elk Halpern). Manuscripts that are approved by the full editorial board are next sent for statistical review. Statistical review takes additional time, during which the manuscript also undergoes scientific editing. Authors of these top articles receive their requests for revision at an average of 55 days after submission. Unfortunately, 88% of all Original Research submitted to Radiology is rejected; those authors receive a decision much sooner, at about 26 days after submission.Although the process of additional statistical review and scientific editing takes time, our overall time to online publication has been dramatically improved since 2017, now 7.5 months versus about 9 months. Print publication takes even longer, currently at 9 months (previously 13 months). As both an author and an editor, I would very much like to see articles routinely published online at 6 months. Unfortunately, but understandably, we sense substantial reviewer fatigue as a result of the pandemic and ever-increasing stress and demands. Return to normal will take some time.Our impact. Editors and editorial boards have to deal with journal rankings. The most important of these is termed the impact factor, calculated by the company Clarivate. The impact factor is a measure of the importance of medical journals in the field. In 2021, we received our 2020 impact factor. The 2020 impact factor reflects articles published only in 2018 and 2019. In those 2 years, Radiology published 664 Original Research and Review articles. Those 664 papers received a total of 7314 citations according to Clarivate. Dividing 7314 citations by 664 published papers yields an impact factor of 11.1 citations per article for articles published in 2018 and 2019. This represents an approximately 30% jump in impact factor for Radiology—a notable accomplishment to achieve our first double-digit impact factor (our prior impact factor was 7.9). To reinforce this, Google Scholar ranked Radiology as the top journal in the category Radiology and Medical Imaging. Google Scholar’s influence is growing—its database of publications is about 10 times greater than that used by Clarivate for its all-important impact factor ranking.Our policies and strategy. It is particularly notable that this year’s impact factor does not account for articles published during the pandemic. Future years will see dramatic changes in impact factor rankings for many medical journals, especially those with a general mission to publish across disciplines such as Radiology.Our current strategy continues to focus on timely publication, in particular for research related to COVID-19. In 2020, COVID-19 publications comprised a remarkable 30% of all publications in medical research. Radiology was particularly important in this respect, earning a ranking of the number five journal worldwide in publication of notable COVID-19 research. About one-third of our research publications were related to COVID-19 in 2020, and about 20% of our 2021 publications were also on the same topic. Our top 30 publications on COVID-19 accounted for 3.6 million views on our website (out of a total of 8.5 million views).Our editorial board continues to implement other fundamental changes to the content of our journal. Ten years ago, approximately 80% of all Radiology publications were Original Research articles. By comparison, Original Research comprised only about one-third of other general medical journals, such as JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet. For years, those other journals had published (and continue to publish) many more editorials, guidelines, and reviews. In 2018, our editorial board implemented a policy of publishing a greater number of editorials. The goal of editorials is to explain complex research articles that may otherwise be understood by only a handful of experts. At present, Radiology publishes approximately 200 editorials per year. Our use of editorials has now climbed from less than 5% to more than 30% of all of our publications. Editorials provide the general reader with a quick synopsis of the corresponding research article, a summary of key results, and insight into why the research was done in the first place. Combined with social media, visual abstracts, podcasts, and scientific and manuscript editing for added clarity, Radiology articles are more accessible than ever to the general reader. Our goal is for further improvement in clarity, helping authors to explain their increasingly sophisticated research results.Planning for the future. Finally, I want to highlight two important initiatives that will help us build an important future for academic radiology research. We launched Radiology In Training in 2020, led by Dr Susanna Lee. The mission of In Training is to build and sustain the next generation of Radiology authors, editors, reviewers, and readers. An editorial board of 19 deputy, associate, and senior deputy editors is composed of talented senior residents and fellows from throughout the world. The In Training editorial board edits and reviews manuscript submissions that are immediately relevant to our next-generation radiologists. The In Training editors are also experts at new media—social media, YouTube, and video. These initiatives for the next generation are augmented by another new initiative, our new Mentored Peer Reviewer program. Led by Dr Jacob Sosna, the Mentored Peer Reviewer program matches junior reviewers with senior mentors who oversee their mentee’s peer reviews of research articles. In its first year, this program graduated 38 new reviewers to full reviewer status. The impact of this program will be of great import to the field in the coming years.Along with tremendous work by our reviewers and editorial board members, the RSNA Publications staff has also greatly contributed to the increased standing of Radiology in the field. Mrs. Jenna Jakubisin is our managing editor and heads a talented editorial team that leads the field in the quality of publication. As I enter the last year of my 5-year appointment at Radiology, I feel confident that initiatives of our current editorial board have come to fruition—most importantly, increasing the stature of Radiology as the best in our field. Finally, we thank our many authors and readers for helping to keep Radiology as the top journal in radiological imaging.Article HistoryPublished online: Jan 04 2022Published in print: Mar 2022 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles Adapting Scientific Conferences to the Realities Imposed by COVID-19Radiology: Imaging Cancer2020Volume: 2Issue: 42018 in Review and Plans for 2019RadioGraphics2019Volume: 39Issue: 1pp. 1-6Mandating Limits on Workload, Duty, and Speed in RadiologyRadiology2022Volume: 304Issue: 2pp. 274-282Fare Thee Well and Let the Good Times RollRadioGraphics2020Volume: 40Issue: 1pp. 1-72017: A Look BackRadiology2017Volume: 285Issue: 3pp. 702-704See More RSNA Education Exhibits Preventing Physician Burnout in Breast Imaging: Scope of the Problem and Keys to SuccessDigital Posters2019Feeling the Burn: Occupational Burnout in Interventional RadiologyDigital Posters2020Immersive First-Person Virtual Reality Training Experiences for Teaching Fluoroscopy-Guided Injection ProceduresDigital Posters2020 RSNA Case Collection Bilateral Morton's NeuromaRSNA Case Collection2022Atypical insufficiency fracture RSNA Case Collection2020Mesial temporal sclerosisRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 302, No. 3 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download