Reviewer Guide: We express our sincere gratitude to our reviewers for their time and hard work in performing reviews. Their 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 both the Authors Guidelines and to take these into consideration in completing their reviews.

The review should be organized based on the outline below.

Number comments consecutively across the entire review (including across both the general and specific comment areas) rather than restarting the numbering in each section. 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. 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.

COMMENTS TO AUTHORS

Manuscript summary

Provide several sentences briefly summarizing the work. What was the purpose of the study? The essence of the study design? The key finding? The author’s ultimate conclusion?

General comments (including Impact)

Provide an itemized list of comments indicating your impression of the article, both strengths and weaknesses. Convey your sense of the article’s originality and impact on radiologists’ clinical practice. How important are the findings? Does the study advance current knowledge or replicate earlier work? Are the findings likely to change your daily practice? These general comments regarding article importance and impact are as valuable a component of your review as the specific comments to follow.

Specific comments (provide page and line number as appropriate)

Title

• Does the title clearly reflect the work that was performed?

Highlights

Do the Highlights adequately capture the essential elements of the manuscript?

Abstract

• Can the Abstract stand on its own without the full manuscript? Is the abstract conclusion fully supported by the abstract results?
• Does the Abstract objective match the purpose statement of the main manuscript?
• Does the Abstract conclusion match that of the main manuscript?
• Does the Abstract clearly indicate the patient cohort?
• Do the Abstract results provide specific data and not just a qualitative summary of the actual results?

Introduction

• Is the Introduction focused on a defined challenge or knowledge gap?
• Does the Introduction contain excessive background textbook-like material on the topic?
• Does the Introduction conclude with a clear purpose statement?
• Are all of the core elements of the purpose statement appropriately mentioned earlier in the Introduction?

Methods

• Is the Methods section sufficiently detailed to allow the study to be duplicated?
• Does the Methods section make clear the details of who performed which steps of the study, including background and experience?
• Does the Methods section make clear how image assessments were performed? Does the Methods section provide criteria for qualitative imaging features and measurement approaches for quantitative approaches?
• If the study employed consensus readings, would independent readings be preferred? Is it clear how the readers reached consensus? If independent readings, then were enough readers included?

Results

• Do all of the results correspond with steps mentioned in the Methods section? Are there any post hoc qualitative assessments with unclear methodology?
• Are specific data provided in support of statements within this section?
• Does the Results section include remarks that are an interpretation of the data, rather than data per se?

Discussion

• Is the first paragraph of the Discussion section a summary of the study’s important findings in plain language?
• Is the Discussion section focused on the investigation at hand? Does the Discussion section give excess attention to matters that are extraneous to the provided data?
• Does the Discussion section indicate the impact of the study on radiology practice? Is the “so what” of the study adequately addressed?
• Are implications in the Discussion section supported by the provided data?
• Does the Discussion section repeat materials already found in the Introduction or Results sections?
• Does the Discussion section provide an excessive review of the existing literature on a topic?

References

• Are there important references on the topic that the authors have not cited?

Tables

• Are tables clear, or are any advised to be reformatted?

Figures

• Are the figures of high quality?
• Is the purpose of each figure clear?
• Are the figures appropriately annotated and labeled?

  CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO EDITOR

  Please provide the Editor with a brief confidential summary assessment considering the work’s merits, impact, and interest among IJMSAR general audience. Use this space to indicate the fundamental reason underlying your reject, revise, or accept recommendation. This gestalt summary is helpful for the Editor and MUST be provided. Do NOT leave this blank. Do NOT simply repeat your comments to the authors.

  OUTLINE TO USE FOR YOUR REVIEW

  Below is the outline for your review, containing only the headings without the further descriptions. We encourage you to copy and paste this outline into your Word document as you work on your review.

   

  COMMENTS TO AUTHORS

  (number comments consecutively across the entire review rather than restarting the numbering in each section; favorable comments do not need to be included in the numbering)

  Manuscript summary

  General comments (including Impact)

  Specific comments (provide page and line number as appropriate)

  Title

  Highlights

  Abstract

  Introduction

  Methods

  Results

  Discussion

  References

  Tables

  Figures

   

  CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO EDITOR