- Email: [email protected]
How to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal
e6
Abstracts / Physica Medica 30 (2014) e1ee15
can form the basis not only for estimates of typical organ and effective doses to reference patients utilising appropriate coefficients, but also local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). DRLs represent a pragmatic mechanism for promoting continuing improvement in performance by facilitating comparison with national values and practice elsewhere. The development and application of DRLs in the UK over the last 30 years, within a coherent framework for patient protection that has included periodic national surveys for conventional x-rays and CT, has successfully helped reduce unnecessary exposures, with national DRLs for many examinations having fallen by a factor 2. HOW TO OPTIMIZE EXPOSURES USING RADIOBIOLOGY AS A GUIDE Klaus Trott, Vere Smyth, Andrea Ottolenghi. Department of Physics, University of Pavia, Via Bassi 6, 27100, Pavia, Italy Medical radiation exposures associated with the diagnosis and treatment of diseases are, besides natural background irradiation, the main source of radiation burden to mankind and may lead to an increased risk of various diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, developmental disorders and heritable health injury. Concepts for radiation risk estimation and reduction were developed by ICRP, yet they do not apply to individual patients but to the population at large. They are designed to be used as guidelines for planning “safe” procedures e.g. in industry and public health. Population risk estimates are based on mean doses to a list of “critical” organs and on tissue weighting factors. The estimation of radiation risks for individual patients, however, has to be based on the determination of anatomical dose distribution within the exposed organs e mean doses may be meaningless. Even within the same organ, pathology, pathophysiology and pathogenesis differ between different potential health complications from medical radiation exposures of the different organs. They depend on dose to critical structures and subvolumes, on age and sex of the exposed patient and most likely also on genetic predisposition and life style factors. Both, for diagnostic exposures and therapeutic exposures of the individual patient, estimations of health risks need to be based on radiobiological mechanisms of pathogenic pathways. Models of risk estimation in particular those from therapeutic exposures are not specific for particular organs but for particular clinical manifestation of radiation-induced disorders and diseases. Moreover, dose volume histograms are of little value in these estimates since anatomy is more important than volume. Several exposure scenarios in diagnostic and therapeutic radiology will be discussed to explain the problems and suggest possibilities to solve the problems. Acknowledgments. This work was partially funded by EU (EC Contract FP7 605298, ‘EUTEMPE-RX’).
Badly written papers, not complying with requirements and including mistakes, eg in references, immediately give the impression that the work may also be poor. Work with experienced authors initially (eg supervisor). Look critically at papers you read and note what you think works well. New writers can learn good practice by example. Good luck! REASONS FOR REJECTION di Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy Paolo Russo. Universita Rejection of a paper refers to the decision of the Editor of a scientific Journal not to accept the submitted manuscript for publication in that Journal. This condition may occur in any phase of the paper evaluation process, but mostly occurs at the end of the first round of the peer-review process, i.e. when one of two experts, asked for their independent opinion, suggest reasons for acceptance, revision or rejection of the manuscript. Typically, in the case of a negative peer-review, the Associate Editor expresses a recommendation (e.g., reject) for the Editor-in-Chief, who takes the final decision. The rejection rate of a Journal, i.e. the ratio of the number of rejected to the number of evaluated manuscripts, has been seen to increase over the last years in many well-reputed scientific Journals, also in the case of medical physics Journals, and this has caused concern both in the Journal's Editorial Boards, and in the authors' community. For example, for the Journal Physica Medica (European Journal of Medical Physics, EJMP) the rejection rate is such that only about one manuscript out of three is accepted for publication. This has then prompted various actions from scientific Publishers and Journal Editors, in order to increase the awareness of the authors toward the scientific writing best practice, the peer-review process and the Journals' whole paper evaluation process. This presentation, by the Editor-in-Chief of EJMP, indicates possible reasons for paper rejection, based on the presenter's experience as an author, as a reviewer, as Associate Editor and as Editor of a scientific Journal in medical physics. These reasons may include lack of proper English writing, lack of motivations or originality, weaknesses in the methodological aspects or in the significance of the findings and other specific reasons, which overall may indicate a general lack of convincing strength of the manuscript. Since publishing in a wellreputed scientific Journal is a competition for the acquisition of the consensus in the Journal's audience, and hence in the corresponding scientific community, toward the work carried out in the specific study, lack of strength of a manuscript for one or more of the above reasons invariably leads to paper rejection. Ultimately, the efforts by the scientific community toward reaching the best practice in scientific writing and evaluation, will hopefully produce a reduced Journals' rejection rate, and most importantly, an improved efficacy of the research work, for the benefit of the scientific and social progess.
HOW TO PUBLISH A PAPER IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL THE CURRENT STATUS OF MEDICAL PHYSICS RECOGNITION IN EUROPE David Thwaites. Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW2006, Australia Publication of work is necessary to move the field forward. Using experience as an author, reviewer, editorial board member and editor, some observations are summarized on writing a paper, submitting it and getting it published, focussing on what makes a good paper and hence likely to be acceptable. First, consider your main message and hence material selection and writing flow so that this is clear. Make the introduction relevant to where the work fits into current related research, going quickly from generalities to specifics. Even good well-presented work will not get into high-impact-factor journals unless it is clearly novel and/or significant. Methods should allow the work to be repeated; ask yourself if they are clear and complete. Explain acronyms. Results should clearly tie figures and tables to text. Conclusions should relate back to the key message and be verifiably supported by results. Discussion and conclusions should not just be re-stated results! Ask a colleague, unconnected with the work, to read the ‘final’ draft paper and give comments on clarity. If they can't understand it, neither will the referees! Re-read it yourself after a time gap. Check journal requirements and comply! Hastily prepared submissions are usually poorly prepared!
Stelios Christofides. Medical Physics Department, Nicosia General Hospital, Nicosia, Cyprus The European Union recognises professions automatically if they meet the requirements of Directive 2005/36/EC [1], as this was amended by Directive 2013/55/EU [2]. Automatic profession recognition gives the right of professionals to move and work without any restrictions in any Member State of the European Union. European recognition of the Medical Physics profession will allow Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists (CQMP) the same privileges as other recognised professions, such as Medical Doctors, Architects, Nurses, etc. Furthermore, Medical Physics Experts (MPE), as defined by Directive 2013/ 59/Euratom [3, 4], can have the same privileges, if are recognised by all the Competent Authorities of all the Member States of the European Union. Currently, neither the CQMPs nor the MPs are recognised automatically as a profession by all the Member States of the European Union. The European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics (EFOMP) is working for many years in developing the education, training and competence of Medical Physicists, both at the CQMP and MPE levels so as the
Abstracts / Physica Medica 30 (2014) e1ee15
can form the basis not only for estimates of typical organ and effective doses to reference patients utilising appropriate coefficients, but also local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs). DRLs represent a pragmatic mechanism for promoting continuing improvement in performance by facilitating comparison with national values and practice elsewhere. The development and application of DRLs in the UK over the last 30 years, within a coherent framework for patient protection that has included periodic national surveys for conventional x-rays and CT, has successfully helped reduce unnecessary exposures, with national DRLs for many examinations having fallen by a factor 2. HOW TO OPTIMIZE EXPOSURES USING RADIOBIOLOGY AS A GUIDE Klaus Trott, Vere Smyth, Andrea Ottolenghi. Department of Physics, University of Pavia, Via Bassi 6, 27100, Pavia, Italy Medical radiation exposures associated with the diagnosis and treatment of diseases are, besides natural background irradiation, the main source of radiation burden to mankind and may lead to an increased risk of various diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, developmental disorders and heritable health injury. Concepts for radiation risk estimation and reduction were developed by ICRP, yet they do not apply to individual patients but to the population at large. They are designed to be used as guidelines for planning “safe” procedures e.g. in industry and public health. Population risk estimates are based on mean doses to a list of “critical” organs and on tissue weighting factors. The estimation of radiation risks for individual patients, however, has to be based on the determination of anatomical dose distribution within the exposed organs e mean doses may be meaningless. Even within the same organ, pathology, pathophysiology and pathogenesis differ between different potential health complications from medical radiation exposures of the different organs. They depend on dose to critical structures and subvolumes, on age and sex of the exposed patient and most likely also on genetic predisposition and life style factors. Both, for diagnostic exposures and therapeutic exposures of the individual patient, estimations of health risks need to be based on radiobiological mechanisms of pathogenic pathways. Models of risk estimation in particular those from therapeutic exposures are not specific for particular organs but for particular clinical manifestation of radiation-induced disorders and diseases. Moreover, dose volume histograms are of little value in these estimates since anatomy is more important than volume. Several exposure scenarios in diagnostic and therapeutic radiology will be discussed to explain the problems and suggest possibilities to solve the problems. Acknowledgments. This work was partially funded by EU (EC Contract FP7 605298, ‘EUTEMPE-RX’).
Badly written papers, not complying with requirements and including mistakes, eg in references, immediately give the impression that the work may also be poor. Work with experienced authors initially (eg supervisor). Look critically at papers you read and note what you think works well. New writers can learn good practice by example. Good luck! REASONS FOR REJECTION di Napoli Federico II, Naples, Italy Paolo Russo. Universita Rejection of a paper refers to the decision of the Editor of a scientific Journal not to accept the submitted manuscript for publication in that Journal. This condition may occur in any phase of the paper evaluation process, but mostly occurs at the end of the first round of the peer-review process, i.e. when one of two experts, asked for their independent opinion, suggest reasons for acceptance, revision or rejection of the manuscript. Typically, in the case of a negative peer-review, the Associate Editor expresses a recommendation (e.g., reject) for the Editor-in-Chief, who takes the final decision. The rejection rate of a Journal, i.e. the ratio of the number of rejected to the number of evaluated manuscripts, has been seen to increase over the last years in many well-reputed scientific Journals, also in the case of medical physics Journals, and this has caused concern both in the Journal's Editorial Boards, and in the authors' community. For example, for the Journal Physica Medica (European Journal of Medical Physics, EJMP) the rejection rate is such that only about one manuscript out of three is accepted for publication. This has then prompted various actions from scientific Publishers and Journal Editors, in order to increase the awareness of the authors toward the scientific writing best practice, the peer-review process and the Journals' whole paper evaluation process. This presentation, by the Editor-in-Chief of EJMP, indicates possible reasons for paper rejection, based on the presenter's experience as an author, as a reviewer, as Associate Editor and as Editor of a scientific Journal in medical physics. These reasons may include lack of proper English writing, lack of motivations or originality, weaknesses in the methodological aspects or in the significance of the findings and other specific reasons, which overall may indicate a general lack of convincing strength of the manuscript. Since publishing in a wellreputed scientific Journal is a competition for the acquisition of the consensus in the Journal's audience, and hence in the corresponding scientific community, toward the work carried out in the specific study, lack of strength of a manuscript for one or more of the above reasons invariably leads to paper rejection. Ultimately, the efforts by the scientific community toward reaching the best practice in scientific writing and evaluation, will hopefully produce a reduced Journals' rejection rate, and most importantly, an improved efficacy of the research work, for the benefit of the scientific and social progess.
HOW TO PUBLISH A PAPER IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL THE CURRENT STATUS OF MEDICAL PHYSICS RECOGNITION IN EUROPE David Thwaites. Institute of Medical Physics, School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW2006, Australia Publication of work is necessary to move the field forward. Using experience as an author, reviewer, editorial board member and editor, some observations are summarized on writing a paper, submitting it and getting it published, focussing on what makes a good paper and hence likely to be acceptable. First, consider your main message and hence material selection and writing flow so that this is clear. Make the introduction relevant to where the work fits into current related research, going quickly from generalities to specifics. Even good well-presented work will not get into high-impact-factor journals unless it is clearly novel and/or significant. Methods should allow the work to be repeated; ask yourself if they are clear and complete. Explain acronyms. Results should clearly tie figures and tables to text. Conclusions should relate back to the key message and be verifiably supported by results. Discussion and conclusions should not just be re-stated results! Ask a colleague, unconnected with the work, to read the ‘final’ draft paper and give comments on clarity. If they can't understand it, neither will the referees! Re-read it yourself after a time gap. Check journal requirements and comply! Hastily prepared submissions are usually poorly prepared!
Stelios Christofides. Medical Physics Department, Nicosia General Hospital, Nicosia, Cyprus The European Union recognises professions automatically if they meet the requirements of Directive 2005/36/EC [1], as this was amended by Directive 2013/55/EU [2]. Automatic profession recognition gives the right of professionals to move and work without any restrictions in any Member State of the European Union. European recognition of the Medical Physics profession will allow Clinically Qualified Medical Physicists (CQMP) the same privileges as other recognised professions, such as Medical Doctors, Architects, Nurses, etc. Furthermore, Medical Physics Experts (MPE), as defined by Directive 2013/ 59/Euratom [3, 4], can have the same privileges, if are recognised by all the Competent Authorities of all the Member States of the European Union. Currently, neither the CQMPs nor the MPs are recognised automatically as a profession by all the Member States of the European Union. The European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics (EFOMP) is working for many years in developing the education, training and competence of Medical Physicists, both at the CQMP and MPE levels so as the