Der Weg eines Manuskripts bei der RöFo von der Einreichung zur Publikation – Informationen für Autoren und Gutachter

The goal of this editorial is to describe how manuscripts are processed at RöFo from initial submission to publication and how manuscripts are reviewed.

When a manuscript is submitted via the portal https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/roefo, Thieme checks it for completeness and also uses the software iThenticate to ensure that the manuscript is in compliance with plagiarism guidelines. If considerable text matching (30 % or more) is identified, the author receives a message with a request for an explanation and revision of the manuscript. The author can review the passages in the manuscript that have been identified as suspicious for plagiarism. Of course, the list of references is excluded from this process. If no discrepancies are found, the manuscript is labeled as “plagiarism check completed and passed”. The managing editor is then informed per e-mail that a manuscript has been submitted to RöFo and needs to be assigned to a section editor. [Table 1] shows the colleagues currently responsible for the individual sections.

Table 1

Editor	Section
Gerhard Adam, Hamburg	Abdomen, Academic Radiology, Editorial, Letter to the Editor, Musculoskeletal System, Vessels
Thorsten Bley, Würzburg	Breast, Chest, Quality/Quality Assurance
Konstantin Nikolaou, Tübingen	Consensus, Contrast Agents, Experimental Radiology, Guideline, Heart, Rapid Communication, Technical Innovations
Marc-André Weber, Rostock	Head/Neck, Health Policy and Evidence Based Medicine, Urogenital Tract, Review Articles
Gerald Antoch, Düsseldorf	Health Care Strategy Forum
Arno Bücker, Homburg/Saar	Interventional Radiology
Meinrad Beer, Ulm	(Topics in Focus) Brennpunkt
Martin Fiebich, Gießen	Technique and Medical Physics
Michael Forsting, Essen	Neuroradiology
Dominik Geisel, Berlin	Crowd-Review Editor
Marius Horger, Tübingen	Pictorial Essay
Marius Mayerhöfer, Vienna	The Interesting Case
Gundula Staatz, Mainz	Pediatric Radiology

Publication History

Article published online:
22 February 2024

• References

• 1 https://roefo.thieme.de/de/crowd-review-bei-der-roefo;jsessionid=E445010FA04952989FAAC2BB9BA0E3E3 (zugegriffen am 29.12.23)
• 2 Provenzale JM. Ten principles to improve the likelihood of publication of a scientific manuscript. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188 (05) 1179-1182
• 3 Provenzale JM. Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success for publication. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195 (06) W382-W387
• 4 Berquist TH. Providing consistent and accurate science in medical publishing: how do we get there?. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198 (06) 1237-1238
• 5 https://www.european-radiology.org/for-reviewers/ (zugegriffen am 29.12.23)
• 6 Bluemke DA, Sosna J. Writing a Great Review for Radiology. Radiology 2020; 295 (03) 496-498
• 7 Horizonte 139, Dezember 2023, Seite 2;. https://www.horizonte-magazin.ch/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ho139_de.pdf (zugegriffen am 29.12.23)
• 8 Weber MA, Dechow C, Libicher M. Magnetic resonance imaging of tropical ulcers. Eur Radiol 2005; 15 (11) 2375-2376
• 9 http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/2003-salzburg.pdf (zugegriffen am 29.12.23)