1. Radiography Peer Review - make your contribution Dr Pauline Reeves Associate Editor (Clinical Imaging)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. Radiography Home Page http://ees.elsevier.com/radiography / http://ees.elsevier.com/radiography / http://ees.elsevier.com/radiography /

6. 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)

7. What to look for Compliance with Instructions to Authors http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623068/ authorinstructions

8. What to look for; Type of submission Full length research paper   Qualitative   Quantitative Review Case study Guest Editorial Technical note

9. What to look for; Overall structure Abstract Introduction Method Results Conclusion

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. What to look for; Plagiarism and ethics – –Look for plagiarism – has this been published previously? – –For studies involving humans has ethics approval been sought?

15. What to look for Helsinki Declaration (http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm)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

16. 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

17. 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 #

18. 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

19. 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’

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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)

25. Writing comments Specific comments – –Accepting the work when corrections are made (revise). Example detailed feedback includes 1. 1. Methodology, para 5, line 6 - who is 'the researcher'? Perhaps this could be replaced with 'to a member of the research team'. 2. 2. Methodology, para 6 - this is a single sentence paragraph. Can it be incorporated into another? 3. 3. Methodology, para 7, line 2 - here you use 'X-ray' but in other places 'x-ray'. Please be consistent. 4. 4. Methodology, para 7, line 8 - please consider replacing the word 'would' with may'. – –There were almost 100 [constructive] comments to this feedback …

26. 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

27. Your comments Word processed, edited, spell and grammar corrected Advise typing in word and then pasting into the boxes Submit Via the web- site http://ees.elsevier.com/ radiography/http://ees.elsevier.com/ radiography/ #

28. Performance statistics 20132012201120102009 Articles Received* 13011310689109 Articles Accepted 715260 50 Articles Withdrawn 454931 Articles Rejected 5546432538 Rejection Rate 44%47%42%29%43%

29. Radiography: Some Statistics Item TypeNumber of articles 20132012201120102009 Case Report5 8985 Full Length Article 75 84715862 Guest Editorial1 2333 Review Article 191512 28 Special Issue 190608 Technical Note 53343 Letter to the Editor 61240 Other 00000

30. Why do it? Improves your cv A method of CPD ‘Gives back’ to the professional community

31. Reviewers needed Reviewers are particularly needed with the following interests/ expertise; – –Gastroenterology – –MRI (especially spectroscopy)