Comparison of Peer Reviewer Instructions of Radiology Journals to Recommended Peer Review Checklists

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives

The objective of this study was to identify differences in peer review guidance provided to reviewer by journals, and to compare radiology journal instructions to recommended peer review checklists.

Methods

Peer review instructions from four prominent radiology journals (Radiology, JACR, Academic Radiology, AJR) were obtained from journal websites and instructions to reviewers in the journal. Two recommended checklists from radiology literature published by Provenzale and Stanley in 2005 with 30 items, and another by Duchesne and Jannin with 69 items published in 2008 were utilized. Journal-based instructions were compared to both recommended checklists using Excel.

Results

Variability was observed in the online available instructions for reviewers of the four radiology journals. Radiology journals’ instructions for reviewers were more likely to address certain parts of the manuscript. Items that were consistently emphasized included rationale, reproducibility, results of statistical test, whether results justify the conclusion, whether the research question was addressed, and the clinical and practical applicability. Other items that were more likely to be mentioned in the instruction checklists include; if the abstract stands alone, a sufficient and concise background, logical flow of results that follows from the methods, appropriate tables and figures, and appropriate references. Items least likely to be addressed included the title, keywords, justification of study design and study methodology, unexpected results, generalizability of findings, and ethical considerations.

Conclusion

Variability was observed in journals’ guidelines for reviewers. This could be attributed to differences in journal aims, scopes, and article types. Radiology journals’ instructions for reviewers are more likely to address certain parts of the manuscript.