21/xsl/MobileMenu.xsltmobileNave880e1541/WorkArea//https://www.rsna.org/TwoColumnWireframe.aspx?pageid=749&ekfxmen_noscript=1&ekfxmensel=falsefalsetruetruetruefalsefalse102e880e1541_21_828.0.0.0730truefalse
  • Donald P. Frush, MD: 1998 Eyler Editorial Fellow

  • There were a great many questions I had when applying for the RSNA Editorial Fellowship. I was in a somewhat unique position because it was the 1st year the fellowship was offered. Some of these questions dealt with the logistics of the 1-month experience, many of which have been refined over the past several years. These logistics included length of time and agendas in individual offices and other facilities. These details were, from the very beginning of this first fellowship, well addressed. The days were busy but balanced and well paced. I also had some more looming uncertainties about what was expected of me and what I should expect from the fellowship. I was anxious about how these expectations would compare with my eventual experiences and what I would learn. Here is what happened, perhaps more distilled and salient given the intervening years that have passed since my own fellowship.

    I expected the fellowship to be challenging, with long days and a myriad of focused events. My experience was that the RSNA editorial process was comprehensive, well orchestrated, and surprisingly efficient. I was both physically and mentally tired at the end of many days but always felt that I had learned a great deal.

    I expected the fellowship to be provocative, with a questioning and critical nature. What I learned was a tremendous appreciation of the complexities of the editorial process and the professional, deliberate, and considerate strategies for dealing with contentious issues. Many of these issues were situational, such as with an individual author or reviewer, and some were long-standing, such as with manuscript processing times. Nothing was trivialized or ignored. Discussions were open and frank, and I was made to feel in every way part of the inner workings of the organization. I did not feel like information was being withheld or altered in any way. At times these discussions were surprising, other times sobering, but there was always a tremendous and enduring sense of satisfaction.

    I was expecting to see many aspects of the editorial and publication process, some of which I did not believe were important or interesting. However, I gained an honest appreciation of the necessary role that each aspect of the editorial and publication process provides for the end product, the advancement of science. The time in those areas I thought I would be least interested in actually ended up being some of the most valuable.

    I expected to meet dozens of individuals and would not have been surprised if many of these meetings were only a casual acknowledgment of my presence. What I found was that everyone I met was a committed and hard-working part of the system and welcomed the chance to share his or her experience and expertise with me. Universally, people who deservedly held their roles in highest regard surrounded me. These are good people. Their commitment, I think, is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that many of these people have been doing this for a very long time.

    I expected this experience to have a great deal of personal benefit, including making me a better reviewer, a better writer, and in many ways a liaison between departmental and institutional individuals and editorial staffs. I felt selfish about this, as I recognized this fellowship would require a lot of sacrifice by both my colleagues and my family. My own concerns about the time away were solely my concerns, and I was well supported. The month passed very quickly and was a rich and comprehensive experience.

    Finally, I expected to establish and develop a greater relationship with the organization, in particularly the editorial offices of Radiology and RadioGraphics. What I found, and the greatest tribute to the experience, were a great many friendships.
     

    Donald P. Frush, MD Associate Professor of Radiology Chief, Division of Pediatric Radiology Duke University Medical Center

We appreciate your comments and suggestions in our effort to improve your RSNA web experience.

Name (required)

 

Email Address (required)

 

Comments (required)

 

 

 

 

Discounted Dues: Eligible North American Countries 
Belize
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatamala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Netherlands Antilles
Nicaragua
Panama
St.Lucia
St. Vincent & Grenadines
Country    Country    Country 
Afghanistan   Grenada   Pakistan
Albania   Guatemala   Papua New Guinea
Algeria   Guinea   Paraguay
Angola   Guinea-Bissau   Peru
Armenia   Guyana   Phillippines
Azerbaijan   Haiti   Rwanda
Bangladesh   Honduras   Samoa
Belarus   India   Sao Tome & Principe
Belize   Indonesia   Senegal
Benin   Iran   Serbia
Bhutan   Iraq   Sierra Leone
Bolivia   Jordan   Solomon Islands
Bosnia & Herzegovina   Jamaica   Somalia
Botswana   Kenya   South Africa
Bulgaria   Kiribati   South Sudan
Burkina Faso   Korea, Dem Rep (North)   Sri Lanka
Burundi   Kosovo   St Lucia
Cambodia   Kyrgyzstan   St Vincent & Grenadines
Cameroon   Laos\Lao PDR   Sudan
Cape Verde   Lesotho   Swaziland
Central African Republic   Liberia   Syria
Chad   Macedonia   Tajikistan
China   Madagascar   Tanzania
Colombia   Malawi   Thailand
Comoros   Maldives   Timor-Leste
Congo, Dem. Rep.   Mali   Togo
Congo, Republic of   Marshall Islands   Tonga
Cote d'Ivoire   Mauritania   Tunisia
Djibouti   Micronesia, Fed. Sts.   Turkmenistan
Dominica   Moldova   Tuvalu
Domicican Republic   Mongolia   Uganda
Ecuador   Montenegro   Ukraine
Egypt   Morocco   Uzbekistan
El Salvador   Mozambique   Vanuatu
Eritrea   Myanmar   Vietnam
Ethiopia   Namibia   West Bank & Gaza
Fiji   Nepal   Yemen
Gambia, The   Nicaragua   Zambia
Georgia   Niger   Zimbabwe
Ghana   Nigeria    

Legacy Collection 2
Radiology Logo
RadioGraphics Logo 
Tier 1

  • Bed count: 1-400
  • Associate College: Community, Technical, Further Education (UK), Tribal College
  • Community Public Library (small scale): general reference public library, museum, non-profit administration office

Tier 2

  • Bed count: 401-750
  • Baccalaureate College or University: Bachelor's is the highest degree offered
  • Master's College or University: Master's is the highest degree offered
  • Special Focus Institution: theological seminaries, Bible colleges, engineering, technological, business, management, art, music, design, law

Tier 3

  • Bedcount: 751-1,000
  • Research University: high or very high research activity without affiliated medical school
  • Health Profession School: non-medical, but health focused

Tier 4

  • Bed count: 1,001 +
  • Medical School: research universities with medical school, including medical centers

Tier 5

  • Consortia: academic, medical libraries, affiliated hospitals, regional libraries and other networks
  • Corporate
  • Government Agency and Ministry
  • Hospital System
  • Private Practice
  • Research Institute: government and non-government health research
  • State or National Public Library
  • Professional Society: trade unions, industry trade association, lobbying organization