2015 Kathleen A. Zar Pre-Symposium Workshop What to expect as an author and what it takes to be a good peer reviewer Maryellen L. Giger, Ph.D. A. N. Pritzker

2015 Kathleen A. Zar Pre-Symposium Workshop

What to expect as an author and what it takes to be a good peer reviewer

Maryellen L. Giger, Ph.D.A. N. Pritzker Professor of Radiology

Department of RadiologyCommittee on Medical Physics and the College

The University of Chicago

[email protected]

Editor-in-Chief, SPIE Journal of Medical Imaging

mailto:[email protected]

At the University of Chicago, my lab discovers new ways to use computers to enrich the information obtained from medical images so that radiologists can better find, diagnose, and treat disease (such as breast cancer).

Giger Zar Workshop 2015

• What to expect as an author?• What it takes to be a good peer reviewer?


Why publish?


Why publish?

• To share your research with your scientific community, and potentially with the public

• Importance of positive and negative findings


Author of what?

• Research article• Special section research article• Technical report• Technical note• Letter• Review article• Correspondence on another’s article• Editorial


Author of what?



Original theoretical or experimental research; includes translational and/or clinical research

Author of what?



• Original theoretical or experimental research; includes translational and/or clinical research

• But on a special topic identified by the journal

Author of what?



• Report of an extensive series of measurements• Should present new scientific information

Author of what?



• Concise description of a specific development, procedure, or device

Author of what?



• Short article or communication of significant interest intended for rapid publication.

Author of what?



• Article reviewing a particular topic or field• An authoritative review• May be either invited or proffered

Author of what?



• “letter” addressing a scientific point in connection with a previous publication (from another author)

Author of what?



• Brief article of interest of general interest to readers

• May be invited or proffered• May be associated with a topic with a special

section and/or issue• May be in addition to the Editor’s usual editorial

Who is an Author?

• Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications*

• Authorship implies responsibility and accountability for published work*

• A list of authors does not communicate who did what!

* ICMJE Guidelines (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors)


Who is an Author?• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work;

or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work*• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual

content*• Final approval of the version to be published*

AND• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in

ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved*

* ICMJE Guidelines (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors)

Basic Components of a Paper• Abstract• Introduction• Materials and Methods• Results• Discussion• Conclusion• Acknowledgements• Literature Cited• Appendices




Content & Presentation



Content & Presentation

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

— Albert Einstein



• Summarizes entire paper - purpose, materials & methods, results, & discussion on relevance

• Write last• Consider your abstract as an “advertisement” for

your full article



• Include review of literature (details vary)• Give the current state of the field/knowledge• Necessary in order to understand your

contribution/impact to the field• Include purpose of your study/paper• Some journals allow a statement on the

organization of the paper



• Characteristics of your dataset including collection process, IRB, etc

• Details of methods will vary with journal with some requesting that you put details in an online appendix/supplement

• Might use a schematic diagram• Statistical analyses used• Materials should be clear so that others can

understand and reproduce



• Tables & figures of results that are referred to in the text• Concise and comprehensive

• Include statistical results and significance



• Relative to your prior literature review• Address agreement or disagreement with your

findings• Your contributions• Puts your findings in context of the big picture

• Clarifications• Limitations of your study



• Relatively short• Think – “take home point”• Could include a quantitative conclusion followed

by a qualitative/relevance statement



• Non-authors and contributions• Funding/grant support• COI





• Picture someone flipping through the journal

• Might read the abstract• Might glance the tables and figures• Might just read the conclusion

• Need to get their attention!

Where should I submit? What’s important?• Who is the “audience” for my paper?

– Broad vs. narrow– Technical vs. clinical

• Does my paper fit the scope of the journal?• How important is impact factor?

– Note relationship to size of field & type of paper

• How important is review time?• How important is overall time from submission to

publication?• e.g., RADIOLOGY vs. MEDICAL PHYSICS vs. JMI


Actually submitting a manuscript

• Can be tedious• Potential word, page, figure, table limitations• Limits on type of figures and tables• Key words• May ask for specific impact statement• Should not submit simultaneously to more

than one journal


Authorship & Plagiarism

• Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behavior and is never acceptable.

• Proper acknowledgement of the work of others used in a research project must always be given.

• e.g., SPIE uses the CrossCheck plagiarism screening service to detect instances of overlapping and similar test in submitted manuscripts.


Authorship & Conflict of Interest

• Public trust in the scientific process and the credibility of published articles depend on the transparency of COIs

• Each author is required to disclose any and all potential conflicts of interests, including any professional relationship or action that may result in a conflict of interest.


Authorship & Use of Human Subjects and Animals

• IRB approval or equivalent; Informed consent • SPIE: “SPIE expects all authors to observe

internationally accepted principles and practices related to the ethical conduct of research involving the use of human subjects or animals.”– Brief statement included in the paper identifying the

institutional oversight or licensing body that approved the studies.

– Statement included confirming that informed consent was either obtained from all subjects or this requirement was waived by the oversight body.


Authors & Common Issues• Write, rewrite, and then rewrite

– Seeing the forest from the trees – Ask senior colleagues & peers to read and critique your

paper before you submit

• Formatting and spellchecking• Consistency in labels, abbreviations, symbols,

equations, etc• Don’t editoralize!• Read many journal articles and look at the

characteristics of the good ones!


Authors & the Reviews• Most people, at some time, will experience a

“major revision” or a “reject” on a manuscript (or grant)

• Learn to appreciate good constructive criticism• Learn to recognize a poor review and just deal

with it• Learn to recognize an inaccurate review and

when to inform the editor• Learn from the review (be self critical)


• What to expect as an author?• What it takes to be a good peer reviewer?


Single vs. double blind review

• Varies with journal• Author does not know the reviewers• Reviewer might or might not know the

authors• AE might or might not be identified


Becoming a Reviewer

• Say “yes” to the review request email• Have a senior/experienced reviewer read your

first couple of reviews• Remember the issues you had when you wrote

a paper and received reviews• Recognize major issues and minor issues with a

paper• Reviewer others’ papers makes you a better

paper writer!Giger Zar Workshop 2015

Writing a review

• Read article as you usually would• Question content: purpose, materials,

methods, statistical analyses, results, conclusions, discussion

• Assess presentation: clear, concise, sufficient detail for reproducing methods and results

• Organize review: major & minor concerns• Be constructive in your review


Writing a review• Assess if paper can ever be made acceptable (or

are new major experiments/simulations, etc. needed)

• Need to determine:– Minor modifications optional– Minor modifications required– Major revisions required and re-review– Reject – reason:

• Quality and/or scope of the research• Clarity, organization, and grammar of the presentation


Reviewers and COI• Public trust in the scientific process and the

credibility of published articles depend on the transparency of COIs

• Reviewer COI may (or may give the appearance) of a bias for or against the paper

• Each reviewer is required to disclose any and all potential conflicts of interests, including any professional relationship or action that may result in a conflict of interest.


Thank you

• Questions?


Documents

2015 Kathleen A. Zar Pre-Symposium Workshop What to expect as an author and what it takes to be a good peer reviewer Maryellen L. Giger, Ph.D. A. N. Pritzker