RSNA News - February 2005

Radiology, RadioGraphics Top Choices for Manuscript Submissions, Authors Say

[We] welcome change and have the vision to expand into new areas of medical imaging, such as molecular imaging and nanotechnology.
—Hedvig Hricak, M.D., Ph.D.

(left) RadioGraphics editor William W. Olmsted, M.D., and Radiology editor Anthony V. Proto, M.D.

RSNA's two peer-reviewed journals continue to evolve in synchrony with technology and author expectations, according to recently conducted surveys.

Authors who had submitted manuscripts to Radiology and RadioGraphics between 2001 and 2003—whether or not the manuscripts were accepted—were questioned about the experience. The goal was to get a better understanding of the needs of authors so that the editors and editorial boards could improve the processes of manuscript submission, review and copyediting.

"In both the author survey and the recent readership survey, the overwhelming majority of respondents said that Radiology is the best scientific journal of our specialty with its exceptional ability to balance quality and timeliness," said Hedvig Hricak, M.D., Ph.D., RSNA Board liaison for publications and communications. "Respondents also believe that RadioGraphics is the best educational journal of our specialty and will help them maintain their certification through CME activities."

An independent analysis by Stratton Publishing & Marketing Inc. concurred. "Overall, the comments are quite positive, reflecting a strong respect for Radiology's high editorial standards and stature in the field, all of which help to encourage and sustain a high submittal rate," the report stated. "The data provide excellent feedback on who submits, what they think of the submittal/review/copyediting process, their perception of Radiology, and how they think the process can be improved—all of which should be reviewed and considered carefully by editors and reviewers to make refinements and improvements to the review process to encourage more quality submissions."

Radiology Results

A 40-item questionnaire was mailed in March 2004 to 3,030 Radiology authors, of whom 1,441 (47.5 percent) returned completed documents. Among the highlights:

• Nearly three-quarters (72.5 percent) of authors said they submitted their best work to Radiology, citing the journal's good reputation, large circulation (more than 41,000 printed and online), high-quality format and the journal's continuous publishing feature by which manuscripts may be published online six to seven weeks before they appear in print.
• For 88.7 percent of the respondents, the journal's impact factor is either important or very important. The impact factor measures how frequently the average article has been cited in a particular period. At 4.8, Radiology has the highest impact factor among 80 imaging journals. In 2003, Radiology was cited 35,486 times—the highest number for all radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging journals.
• Almost all the respondents (94.8 percent) found the Publication Information for Authors (PIA) section either helpful or very helpful in preparing their manuscripts for submission.
• About 80 percent of the authors said that reviewer comments were helpful or very helpful as they prepared their revisions.
• Nearly three-quarters of respondents (71 percent) were taking advantage of the new image license agreement that allows authors of articles published in Radiology and RadioGraphics to reuse the images without requesting permission from RSNA.

Changes in the Peer-Review Process

Radiology Editor Anthony V. Proto, M.D., said that while the survey produced no surprises, he's gratified that so many authors send their best work to Radiology. "I am very proud that Radiology is held in such high regard," he said. "I'm always looking for ways to make the process better and more efficient. We've incorporated several changes over the past couple of years that have done just that."

One change involves combining two types of requested revisions. In 2001, Dr. Proto implemented a statistical review process for each manuscript. At first, statistical review was completed after the first revision. Now, authors can complete the statistical and non-statistical revisions at the same time.

"In addition, we now only send the reviewer comments for which we want an author's response. That makes it easier on everyone," explained Dr. Proto. "We've also added office staff to improve manuscript processing and I get outstanding help from our deputy editors."

Online manuscript submission and improved copyeditor-author communications via the portable document file (PDF) system have also helped to improve the process. "Our average time to first decision is about 39 days—about one-third the time it takes some other prestigious, non-imaging journals to respond," said Dr. Proto.

RadioGraphics Results

The author survey also turned up no real surprises for RSNA's education journal. In March 2004, a 30-item questionnaire was sent to 456 authors; 257 authors (56.4 percent) responded.

"The survey validated my expectations," said RadioGraphics Editor William W. Olmsted, M.D. "Conclusions of importance to me were that 89 percent of authors felt copyediting partially or definitely improved manuscripts and 96 percent found the PIA pages either helpful or very helpful. We constantly try to aid and support authors in making the transition from education exhibit to RadioGraphics manuscript via clear instructions for manuscript preparation excellent copyediting."

Other findings:

• More than 87 percent of authors found the reviewer comments helpful.
• Ninety-two percent of authors indicated that RadioGraphics has been their first choice for submitting manuscripts. (Note: RadioGraphics solicits its submissions.)
• About half of respondents said that when RadioGraphics was not their first choice for submission, it was because the material was more appropriate for a subspecialty journal.

Like Radiology, RadioGraphics increasingly relies upon the speed and efficiency of electronic communication.

"There are three ways we handle manuscripts electronically," explained Dr. Olmsted. "For most manuscripts, we now ask the authors to send their images and text to us on CD, along with one hard copy of the manuscript. We no longer ask for multiple hard copies or expensive photoprints. Manuscripts are then sent to RadioGraphics reviewers on CD. For our international reviewers, RSNA has created a secure Web site on which manuscripts can be quickly and efficiently reviewed. Our authors receive their galleys as PDF documents attached to e-mails, which has substantially reduced delivery costs and turnaround time."

The current manuscript turnaround time at RadioGraphics is about 40 days. Then add five weeks for revisions and another week to final disposition.

"We're about where we want to be with respect to the review and revision process," said Dr. Olmsted. "The journal's continuing major goal is to publish the highest quality in radiology education and CME and to distribute this excellent material to RSNA members and radiologists worldwide."

Future Directions

Radiology's ability to publish on the Internet several weeks ahead of the printed journal has made the submission-to-publication process much more efficient.

Dr. Proto said he thinks publishing online six or more weeks ahead of the printed journal could be the norm for the future. In fact, Radiology posted the first journal article submitted from the International Space Station on November 8, 2004. Due to the fast-tracking process, the article was published online 12 weeks in advance of the printed February 2005 issue.

"I see the journals continuing to be reader friendly-responding to the concerns of readers and authors while always excelling in scientific rigor," said Dr. Hricak. "In addition, Radiology will maintain a balance between high-end science and immediate clinical relevance. The journal editorial office and the RSNA Board welcome change and have the vision to expand into new areas of medical imaging, such as molecular imaging and nanotechnology."