Anleitung zu wissenschaftlichen radiologischen Publikationen

Zusammenfassung

Ein Großteil aller zur Publikation eingereichter wissenschaftlicher Manuskripte beinhaltet formale und redaktionelle Fehler. Dadurch kommt es zur Ablehnung von wissenschaftlichen Daten in Journalen mit Peer-Review-Verfahren. Die vorliegende Arbeit soll jungen Wissenschaftlern eine Anleitung für die Erstellung eines geordneten und klar strukturierten radiologischen Manuskripts an die Hand geben.

Abstract

Many scientific manuscripts submitted for publication are flawed by conceptual mistakes. This leads to the rejection of potentially valuable scientific data in renowned journals. This article intends to guide young researchers with respect to writing a well-structured scientific radiological manuscript.

Key words

technical aspects - scientific writing - radiological manuscript - scientific radiological manuscript

• Literatur

• 1 Albarran JW, Scholes J. How to get published: seven easy steps. Nurs Crit Care 2005; 10: 72-77
• 2 Berk RN. Preparation of manuscripts for radiology journals: advice to first-time authors. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158: 203-208
• 3 Chew FS. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the Am J Roentgenol. Am J Roentgenol 1991; 156: 627-632
• 4 Davidson AJ, Carlin JB. What a reviewer wants. Paediatr Anaesth 2008; 18: 1149-1156
• 5 Eyler WR. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Radiology 1980; 135: 239-243
• 6 Kliewer MA. Writing it up: a step-by-step guide to publication for beginning investigators. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185: 591-596
• 7 Laniado M. How to present research data consistently in a scientific paper. Eur Radiol 1996; 6: S16-S18
• 8 Rosenfeldt FL, Dowling JT, Pepe S et al. How to write a paper for publication. Heart Lung Circ 2000; 9: 82-87
• 9 Sheiman R. Writing an Original Research Manuscript: The Do’s and Don’ts. Chicago: RSNA; 2009
• 10 Siegelman SS. Advice to authors. Radiology 1988; 166: 278-280
• 11 Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL et al. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 1998; 280: 257-259
• 12 Welch HG. Preparing manuscripts for submission to medical journals: the paper trail. Eff Clin Pract 1999; 2: 131-137
• 13 Wells WA. Me write pretty one day: how to write a good scientific paper. J Cell Biol 2004; 165: 757-758
• 14 Ziman J. Public knowledge: The social dimension of science: Cambridge University Press. 1968
• 15 Whimster WF. Biomedical Research: How to plan, publish and present it. 2nd ed. London: Springer; 1997
• 16 Heindel W, Schwindt W. RöFo: prospects and challenges for the future. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 877-882
• 17 Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med 2001; 76: 889-896
• 18 Jacques TS, Sebire NJ. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Rep 2010; 1: 2
• 19 Henes FO, Groth M, Bley TA et al. Quantitative assessment of bone marrow attenuation values at MDCT: an objective tool for the detection of bone bruise related to occult sacral insufficiency fractures. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2229-2236
• 20 Bannas P, Adam G, Habermann C. Successful image guided implantation of a percutaneous gastrostomy in a previously operated Billroth II stomach. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2009; 181: 904-905
• 21 Briscoe MH. Preparing Scientific Illustrations. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 1995