Radiology2007: Reviewing forRadiology

Abstract

The quality of a scientific journal is, in a major way, a reflection of the quality and dedication of its reviewers (2). Having both a knowledge of the literature and expertise in the subject matter and research methods, the reviewer provides valuable information for us regarding the importance of a manuscript, its science, and the new information contained therein. Our dedicated reviewers take seriously the task at hand and are asked to return the review within a reasonable time frame (3 weeks allotted). Such timely return allows us to maintain a reasonable time to first decision for the manuscript (average time to first decision, 34 days as of our most recent data, decreased from 54 days in 1998) and a reasonable time to publication, although the latter depends in a substantial way on the time taken by the author to revise the manuscript. Some authors return a revised manuscript within 3–4 weeks, while others may take months to revise their manuscripts. We must maintain a balance between timeliness and quality, both of which authors value. Once that balance is achieved, it is hoped that authors will submit their best work to that journal, taking pride in both the quality of their publication and the journal in which it appears. Shortly after I was appointed Editor, a number of reviewers contacted me to inquire whether I would provide guidelines for reviewing. My response was that I would, but first I needed to accumulate experience to determine what, in fact, would be the most helpful review for me when rendering a decision on a manuscript. In the meantime, the system in place and used by my predecessor had been working well, so it seemed prudent to continue the same. In my 3rd year as Editor, I did offer guidelines for reviewing (1), guidelines that I am now updating with this communication. Once again, I stress the following: First, we at Radiology are fortunate to have a large cadre of outstanding reviewers. They have provided us their insights and dedicated service for many years, and we look forward to their continued service in the years to come. Second, I realize that many reviewers have their own preferred styles of reviewing and acknowledge that those varied styles have been of immense help to me over the past years. One can become a reviewer for Radiology in several ways, some of which include invitation by the Editor, recommendation by a member of the Radiology Editorial Board, recommendation by a current Radiology peer reviewer, and request from the individual indicating his or her interest in becoming a peer reviewer. When an individual is added to our database of peer reviewers, he or she will initially function on several occasions as an “extra” peer reviewer (trial period) for a manuscript that is also being reviewed in routine fashion by our more experienced peer reviewers. A reviewer of a manuscript receives the comments of the other reviewers of that manuscript so as to be aware of the comments made by all reviewers. Peer reviewers are evaluated by the Editor for their timeliness, and their comments are compared with those made by other peer reviewers of the same manuscript. Editor’s Recognition Awards are given yearly on the basis of those evaluations and comparisons. Category I continuing medical education credit is also given if requested by the reviewer (see below). Since we use a double-blinded peer review system, reviewers are not made aware of the identity of the authors. Published online 10.1148/radiol.2441070689