Reviewer Guide

We express our sincere gratitude to our reviewers for their time and hard work in performing reviews. Reviews are carefully assessed by the editorial board and are invaluable for ensuring the quality and impact of our published articles.

We also ask our reviewers to familiarize themselves with the R3 guidelines for authors: https://www.r3journal.org/author-guidelines before completing their reviews.

Each review should be organized based on the outline below. Number comments consecutively across the entire review rather than restarting the numbering in each section. Include relevant page and line number with comments whenever possible. Reviewer comments that are favorable and that do not call for a response from the authors do not need to receive a number.

Do not focus your review on typographic errors unless they significantly change the meaning of the text. Accepted manuscripts will undergo comprehensive proofreading and correction by expert copyeditors before final publication.

In your Comments to the Authors, please do not make remarks that indicate a Reject or Accept decision (e.g., “this article should (or should not) be published because [reason]”). In particular, a favorable or even glowing review accompanying a Reject decision by the editorial board will be confusing for authors. Simply provide your assessment of the article’s strengths and weaknesses, which the editorial board will in turn use in rendering a decision.

Please provide detailed section-by-section comments even if you believe a manuscript warrants rejection. The itemized review gives critical justification to both the editors and the authors for understanding your rationale for rejection as well as important feedback to the authors for improving their work.

Regardless of your opinion of the manuscript, maintain a respectful and helpful tone throughout your review.

Comments To Authors

Concise manuscript summary:

Provide a few sentences describing the purpose, and when appropriate conclusions, of the article.

Suggestions for improving the highlights (if none, state none):

Do the highlights represent the key aspects of the article?

Manuscript Strengths (up to 3):

Strengths can describe any element of the paper from organization and focus to originality and impact.

Manuscript weaknesses (up to 3):

Is the article timely? Does it fill an important gap in knowledge or has the subject matter been extensively covered in the recent literature? Are the recommendations and conclusions evidence-based? Will the article appeal to a broad audience?

Any deficits that make the article unsuitable for publication in its current form should be included. Minor and/or easily rectified weaknesses can be addressed in the specific comments below.

Suggestions for improving the manuscript’s title (If none, state none):

Does the title reflect the purpose and content of the article? Can it be more concise?

Suggestions for improving the manuscript’s organization (If none, state none):

Is the article logically and clearly organized? Do the subheadings make sense? Is there unnecessary redundancy?

Suggestions for improving the abstract (If none, state none):

Does the abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript’s purpose, content, and/or conclusions?  Is the abstract consistent with the information and recommendations of the text? Is all the information in the abstract covered in the manuscript? Is there important information omitted from the abstract?

Suggestions for improving the introduction (If none, state none):

Is the introduction clear and concise? Is there extraneous information presented that can be omitted? Is there critical information omitted that should be included?

Suggestions for improving the body of the manuscript (if none, state none):

Is the manuscript well organized and clearly written? Are there any important omissions? Are there any entities discussed that don’t belong? Is the information presented accurate and up-to-date? Are the conclusions supported by the remainder of the manuscript?

Is all the information presented based on established scientific evidence? Is it clear which statements represent opinion or speculation? (If yes, state yes. If no, please explain, and indicate page and line number for any specific statements to which you are referring):

Authors are not prohibited from expressing opinions or speculating, provided such statements are not presented as established fact.

Are all the authors’ conclusions and recommendations consistent with published literature, sound scientific principles, and/or best practices? (If yes, state yes. If no, please explain, and indicate page and line number for any specific statements to which you are referring):

If a statement is presented as supported by evidence, please ensure that an appropriate reference is provided and that any references included truly support the authors’ contentions and conclusions.

Are the included references appropriate? (If yes, state yes. If no, please explain and indicate which references are not appropriate):

Are all the included references relevant to the article? Are the referenced articles evidence-based? Do the references reflect current practice or are they old/outdated?

Are any key references omitted? (If yes, state yes. If no, please include reference(s) with explanation of why it (they) should be included):

Are there important/relevant articles that should be included? Are there key articles that have been published recently that the authors might not be aware of? Do not include your own articles unless they will substantially contribute to the value of the paper.

Do tables add value to the manuscript? Are they clearly organized and easy to understand? (If yes, state yes. If no, please explain and indicate which tables can be improved or removed):

Do the tables include extraneous information/data? Are they clear or confusing? Do they enhance the text?

Would the manuscript benefit from additional tables? (If no, state no. If yes, please explain):

Would an additional table allow information to be presented more clearly and concisely? Is there information in the text that might be more appropriately included in a table?

Are there any unnecessary or redundant figures? (If no, state no. If yes, indicate which figures can be eliminated with an explanation of why they should not be included):

Each figure should have a purpose and contribute to the reader’s understanding of the subject matter. A “great case” that does not serve the intended purpose of the paper can be omitted.

Are the figures of sufficient quality to identify the key findings? (If yes, state yes. If no, please explain and indicate which figures can be improved):

Are the key findings easily visible? Is the field-of-view sufficient to put the findings in their anatomic context? Are there any cosmetic adjustments in the image(s) that you would recommend?

Are the figures appropriately annotated/labeled? (If yes, state yes. If no, please explain and indicate which figures can be improved):

Are arrows provided for key findings? Are the image/patient orientation and imaging modality clearly indicated? Are there any anatomic landmarks that should be labeled to help orient the reader?

Do you detect any commercial bias? (If no, state no. If yes, please explain and indicate page and line number if referring to any specific comments):

Vendor neutrality should be maintained whenever possible. When a potential conflict of interest is identified, ensure that the authors have taken appropriate steps to mitigate its impact on the article’s objectivity and conclusions.

Additional comments for authors:

Include any comments that might improve the quality of the paper that were not addressed in the above sections.

Confidential Comments to Editor

Recommendation (Accept, Minor revision, Major Revision, Reject, Transfer):

Your recommendation should be congruent with your comments to the authors.

Manuscript educational value (1 is low educational value, 5 is high educational value)

Does the article fill a gap in current knowledge or clarify a confusing/complex subject? Will the material presented likely improve the knowledge and practice of the typical reader?

Novelty/originality of the subject matter (1 is low novelty, 5 is high novelty)

Has the topic been recently extensively covered in a similar manner in the available literature?

Novelty/originality of the authors’ approach to the subject matter (1 is low novelty, 5 is high novelty)

Do the authors present existing knowledge in a clever or novel manner that is likely to appeal to readers?

Will the manuscript appeal to a broad range of readers? (yes/no) If no, please explain.

Is the article relevant to a typical radiology practice?

Who would this article most likely appeal to? Choose all that apply (Academic radiologists, private practice radiologists, radiology trainees, non-radiologist providers, no one)

Would you recommend this manuscript to a colleague to read? (yes/no) If no, please explain.

Is the manuscript length appropriate for the subject matter? (yes/no) If no, please explain.

Is the manuscript easy to read? (yes/no) If no, please explain.

Can the article be consumed in a single read? Do you find yourself re-reading sections to fully understand them? Does the manuscript flow in a sensible manner?

Does the manuscript require substantial editing for grammar? (yes/no)

Do you detect any copyright or plagiarism concerns? (yes/no) If yes, please explain.

Please provide specific figures or text for which you have concerns.

Additional comments for editor:

Brief summary of why you think this article should be published or rejected