Navigating the Editorial Gauntlet for Excellence in Radiology Publishing

Abstract

Any scientific journal of repute constantly strives to ensure the highest possible quality, integrity, and ethical standards of published research. This article attempts to the highlight multifaceted responsibilities of an Editor in Chief (EiC) and editors such as managing the peer review process, detecting plagiarism, and ensuring quality of selected manuscript before publication. The EiC also has to tackle issues of salami slicing, duplicate submissions, secondary publications, and guest and ghost authorship while adhering to constantly evolving guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The EiC has to ensure adherence to journal guidelines, confidentiality in rigorous review by motivated reviewers, preventing reviewer burnout, incentivization of reviewers, and the review by biostatistician of manuscripts having large data set for appropriateness of statistical analysis. This article emphasizes the decision-making strategies to balance quality with timely publication, maintaining confidentiality, and managing conflicts of interest by the EiC. It also discusses the role of the EiC in educating prospective authors and residents on academic writing, and the optimal utilization of an advisory board to advance the journal's mission. Finally, the EiC's role in managing permissions for the reuse of published images, collaborating with editors of other journals, and enhancing the journal's indexing and impact factor is underscored. This article provides essential best practices for maintaining high ethical and publication standards in radiology journals and the maze that the editor has to wade through in ensuring all of these. In addition, the EiC needs to maintain the highest level of motivation throughout the tenure as it is an honorary responsibility undertaken voluntarily.

Keywords

editorial challenges - editorial gauntlet - radiology publishing

Introduction

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) of a scholarly radiology journal has a monumental responsibility to ensure the integrity of the entire editorial process, starting with the screening of submitted manuscripts to ensure they align with the journal's objectives. This includes scrutinizing compliance with journal guidelines, assessing the quality of articles, allocating them to joint or associate editors and reviewers for peer review, and monitoring the process in a timely manner. The EiC is responsible for addressing reviewer comments by sending articles for revisions, making decisions on acceptance, performing plagiarism checks, correcting language, and sending articles to publishers for processing. Additionally, they ensure the timely publication of quality articles while maintaining the highest ethical standards for the published research.

The role and responsibilities of the EiC encompass a wide range of tasks, especially in dealing with various challenges and pitfalls. It is, in fact, a 24 × 7, 365-days-a-year responsibility demanding the highest levels of dedication, honesty, integrity, and confidentiality. The EiC must closely coordinate with various stakeholders such as authors, joint or associate editors, section editors, reviewers, advisory board members, publishers, and the owners of the journal. As the gatekeeper of an academic journal, which is the showpiece of any professional society, the EiC plays a role integral to the academic reputation of the society.

In addition, the EiC has to navigate through complex, tricky issues and challenges such as guest and ghost authorships, duplicate submissions, scientific misconducts, various forms of plagiarisms, acknowledgment of use of artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, consensus guidelines, persistent pressure from colleagues, canvassing, and conducting training of prospective authors and residents in ethical research methodology. An EiC has to update himself or herself with updating guidelines such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and be an active member of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) so as to be aware about discussions on the contentious issues in the forum and possible ways to deal with them.[1] [2] The aim of the EiC is to optimally utilize the journal's advisory board, maintain the journal's reputation, and elevate its standards, level of indexing, and impact factor.[3]

Another major challenge is election/selection of the EiC and the editorial board, maintaining the same level of standards during change of guard and initial period after transition, and acclimatization of the new team in various editorial processes.

This article deals with the various responsibilities and challenges faced by an EiC, offering best practices for tackling these issues while ensuring high ethical and publication standards.

Initial Screening of Manuscript

The EiC undertakes to screen the manuscript for the following:

• Alignment of the article to the scope of the journal. The foremost responsibility of the EiC is to verify that the submissions align with the journal's scope,

• Adherence to the formatting and referencing requirements.

• Compliance with ethical considerations such as uploading of the conflict of interest, copyright form, and undertaking from authors as per the instructions to the authors.

• Scientific merit, clarity, novelty, and clinical utility of the research paper.

For example, Indian Journal of Radiology & Imaging may receive a sponsored article on utility of an approved nonradiological diagnostic equipment highlighting its superiority over an established radiological diagnostic equipment in the detection of breast malignancy. The EiC's role is to reject such manuscripts or refer them to more appropriate journals early in the review process, thus saving valuable time of the editorial team and journal resources.

An EiC has to ensure that Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is duly mentioned and that the conflict of interest and copyright form are provided by all the authors of all original clinical research papers before forwarding these for peer review. If ethical approvals are not included, the manuscript should be returned for resubmission with approval letters of the IRB/Ethic Committee of the institution (IEC) or rejected in the absence of it.

Best Practices for Ensuring Robust Screening

The EiC must enforce use of software like Editorial Manager and Scholar One Manuscripts for initial screening of the articles as per guidelines provided by the ICMJE and ensuring ethical standards. In addition, the secretarial assistant can check adherence to submission guidelines as well as attachment of necessary documents to reduce the burden of the EiC as well as make the process uniform and robust. Most of the reputed journals currently use some of these software tools, which saves time of the EiC for initial screening as per the checklist.

Ascertaining Guest and Ghost Authorship

Guest authorship. The issue of guest authorship has the potential to seriously undermine the integrity of the scientific research. Hence, an undertaking of substantial contribution to conception, design, execution, or interpretation of research is generally obtained from all authors at the time of submission of the manuscripts. However, young researchers always try to list senior colleagues of the department, not only to enhance the paper's credibility but also to ensure respect and cordiality with the senior colleague. It is not difficult for the EiC to get a fair idea about the contribution of the senior faculty listed as an author in manuscripts submitted by young researchers, especially on manuscripts based on thesis. Most of theses are not formatted as journal requirement; instead, these are abbreviated to fulfil word count requirement before submission. These invariables have names of the senior faculty of the department. It is obvious from most of these manuscripts that the senior faculty has not even carefully read or scrutinized the thesis before submission to the journal.

Guest authorship and ghost authorship are reported in 17.6 and 7.9% of articles, respectively, in high-impact medical journals. In radiology journals, guest authorship rates are reported to be between 24.7 and 26%.[4] [5] Wislar et al found that 21% of articles in leading medical journals included either guest or ghost authors, raising concerns about the integrity and transparency of authorship practices. The involvement of the medical industry, particularly through ghost written articles, continues to challenge the reliability of clinical research, especially when corporate entities participate in the study design and manuscript preparation.[6]

However, in practice, it is not possible for the EiC to be sure of award of guest and ghost authorship in the submitted manuscript. To quote a personal experience of one of the authors who happened to be the EiC of a reputed indexed journal, a very good original article was submitted to the journal during his tenure. During the initial scrutiny of the article, the EiC was surprised to see his name as one of the authors of the article. The EiC promptly rejected the article in view of the guest authorship to him, although the manuscript merited peer review and further processing of the article.

The editors and joint editors have to be very extremely cautious and must maintain the highest level of integrity, avoid conflict of interest, and rescue themselves from peer review process of articles authored or coauthored by them. Of course, it is appropriate for the EiC and joint or co-editors to avoid submitting original research articles authored by them to their own journal during their tenure to maintain the highest level of integrity and ethics, and avoid questions being raised regarding conflict of interest by readers.

Ghost authorship. Ghost authorship is also a serious issue that can compromise the integrity of research and has the potential of publishing biased research. It occurs when significant contributors to the research are omitted from the author list, often to obscure the involvement of professional writers or external parties with vested interests.

To quote an example: The sponsoring company may seek the help of a professional writer to publish a sponsored clinical trial on a new imaging modality or newer contrast media and instead include few influential medical professionals from the same specialty as authors. However, the identity of the contribution of the professional writer is not disclosed, violating ethical standards.

Many online websites offer professional writing services and assurance to get their research paper published in a scientific journal for a specified fee. The young researchers and residents are easily lured and seek their help for both the services. Almost all these publications facilitated by them are in predatory or pseudo journals.

The order of authorship is determined by the authors and must be finalized before submission. No changes (additions or deletions) to authors are allowed during processing or after the article's decision. If a complaint is raised by any author during processing, the EiC may request an explanation from the corresponding author. In case of a dispute among authors, the EiC must reject the article. For cases of misconduct, the EiC should notify the authors' institution for appropriate action and reject the article. If a complaint arises after publication, the article may be retracted and removed from the journal archives after confirming the misconduct.

Acknowledgments

Contributors who do not fulfil the criteria of authorship but have made significant contribution to the manuscript may be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments” section at the end of the article.

For example, if artificial intelligence–assisted technology such as large language model, ChatGPT, or similar computer programs or image creators were used while writing the manuscript, it should be mentioned as to how it was used.[7]

Checking for Plagiarism

The issue of plagiarism remains one of the major concerns for the editors of even the most prestigious journals as plagiarism can affect the integrity of scientific publications. It may result not only due to honest errors, ignorance, and lack of awareness on the part of the authors, especially the beginners, but also through deliberate acts such as direct copying of text, unattributed paraphrasing, reuse of one's own published work, or salami slicing. Some of the contributing factors include “publish or perish” culture, lack of understanding policy of plagiarism, and lack of training on ethical writing and academic publishing. In a study examining COVID-19 articles from 2020 to 2021, approximately 41.6% of manuscripts in infectious disease journals contained plagiarized content. This prevalence was slightly higher for original research articles (46.6%) compared to review articles (35.1%).[8] [9]

Plagiarism misleads readers, adversely affect the credibility of the published research, and ultimately affect patient outcomes if such data are used for formulating clinical guidelines.

Once the EiC finds merit in any manuscript and decides to send the manuscript to associate or section editors or reviewers for peer review process, the best approach is to use software tools such as iThenticate, Turnitin, and Crosscheck to identify instances of plagiarism. If the manuscript includes paragraphs similar to earlier published studies, the EiC may either reject the manuscript or request the authors to rephrase the similar content or include proper reference in the manuscript before processing the manuscript further.

The EiC can also refer to the guidelines provided by the COPE for dealing with various types of plagiarism, steps for investigation, and resolution.[2]

Peer Review Process

Kwee et al reported the use of single-blinded peer review in 62 (52.1%) journals and double-blinded peer review in 49 (41.2%) journals in a study involving 119 journals. The practice of single-blinded review can introduce biases favoring well-known authors or institutions, which might inadvertently influence journal impact factors.[10] Many studies have highlighted the importance of robust peer review. Peer review is essential for scientific validation, yet it faces challenges such as the following:

• Poor review quality: Some reviewers may give superficial feedback, which can be vague, general in nature, or too critical without any constructive suggestions.

• Reviewer manipulation: Authors may recommend “friendly reviewers” or “biased reviewers” that might provide feedback in favor of the submission.

Best Practices in Selecting Reviewers

Manuscripts allotted to trusted subject expert reviewers. The EiC must maintain a large pool of reliable expert reviewers with expertise in specific imaging modality, various organ/system imaging, and/or interventional radiology. Although databases like ORCID and Publons are available and may be helpful in tracking the performance of reviewers, the EiC has to categorize available reviewers according to the level of expertise and the quality of their review for allotting manuscripts. The original research articles that have potential to add value to the journal are sent to trusted expert reviewers selectively, not to overburden them. The aim is to get a critical review for these manuscripts so that these can be refined before acceptance and shortcomings, if any, can be rectified.

For example, if a manuscript on artificial intelligence applications in radiology is assigned to a reviewer with a background in conventional radiology, the EiC should reassign it to a reviewer with specific expertise in artificial intelligence

Double-blinded peer review process. All reputed journals follow a double-blinded peer review process in which both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to minimize bias and maintain confidentiality and impartiality. The flow diagram highlighting the entire peer review process after article submission is depicted in [Fig. 1].

Fig. 1 Flow diagram highlighting the peer review process. EiC, editor in chief.

Formal Recognition and Incentivizing Reviewers

Since the quality peer review process is time-consuming and demanding, many expert reviewers are reluctant to accept multiple assignments in a short period of time. To maintain a sufficient pool of high-quality reviewers and prevent reviewer fatigue, the EiC must implement strategies for retaining and incentivizing reviewers.

Best Practices for Ensuring High-Quality Peer Review

Formal recognition programs: Issuing formal certificates of contribution to reviewers at annual conferences of professional associations can serve as an incentive for continued participation. Certain journals often acknowledge their reviewers in an annual list published in one of the journal issues. This provides formal academic recognition and helps in maintaining reviewer loyalty.

Monetary compensation: Although uncommon, certain journals provide monetary rewards or free journal subscriptions to reviewers as an incentive for submitting timely and high-quality reviews.

For example, the Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging had devised a unique scoring system based on timely review and quality of review and its impact on the decision outcome of the manuscript and awards two best reviewers with a certificate and monetary compensation during the Annual Conference of Radiology and Imaging Association. This formal recognition has had a positive impact and is appreciated by members of the association.

Fast-Track Review of Manuscripts in Special Circumstances

The EiC may, in consultation with the editors, opt for a fast-track review approach in specific situations where research is groundbreaking and has immediate clinical implications and established guidelines are not available.

For example, COVID-19 was such a scenario when fast changing decisions on investigation methodology and treatment had to be taken in view of the magnitude of the problem and these decisions had to be published and disseminated rapidly to clinicians.

Salami Slicing

Salami slicing refers to the process of breaking down a large research project into several smaller papers to increase the number of publications. Such approach may result in the duplication of data across different articles, distorting the scientific literature, misleading readers and diluting the overall impact of the research. It is difficult to detect and software like Crosscheck can help in identifying articles for further scrutiny. Ding et al in 2020 published a study focused on the prevalence of salami publication practices among academic journals. The authors sampled 209 journals for their policies on salami and duplicate publications. They reported that only13% journals had policy on both salami and duplicate publications, 36% had policy on duplicate publication only, and 18% journals did not include policy on either practice. Further analysis of the journal revealed a gap between the policy on handling of salami and duplicate publication.[10]

The EiC has a crucial responsibility to uphold the accuracy and integrity of the manuscripts they publish, thereby supporting evidence-based medical practice. However, certain issues such as salami slicing, duplicate and redundant publications, and articles published in predatory journals can affect the results of meta-analysis and systemic reviews because of skewed data. In addition, such manuscripts result in wastes of resources by burdening the peer review system with fragmented research.

For example, an author undertakes a comprehensive study on the usefulness of new interventional techniques for liver cancer treatment. Rather than submitting a single cohesive paper, the author chooses to submit several segmented articles, each concentrating on a particular interventional technique. The EiC must detect this from search of publications by the same authors with a similar set of data and ensure that the author consolidates the findings into one comprehensive article. Sometimes, salami publications may be detected later by the editor of another journal when fragmented articles are submitted to another journal.

Duplicate Publications

Duplicate publication occurs when identical research is published in multiple journals, typically with little alterations. Such publications can skew citation metrics and artificially enhance an author's publication count.

Best Practices

Ideally, the EiCs should collaborate with other journals in their field to detect and prevent duplicate submissions. But in practice, it is not easy as editor appointment is for a fixed term. By the time an editor develops a collaborative relationship with their counterparts, the term of the EiC ends.

The EiC must follow the flowchart offered by the COPE to guide the handling of duplicate submissions, outlining suitable corrective measures.[2]

Scientific Misconduct and Retractions

Fang et al in 2020 examined retractions of 2,047 articles indexed in PubMed within the life sciences and biomedical fields. They reported that 67.4% of these retractions were linked to misconduct, with 43.4% suspected of fraud, 14.2% resulting from duplicate publications, and 9.8% due to plagiarism.[12] Kwee et al surveyed radiology researchers and reported that 5.9% of them admitted to committing scientific fraud, while 27.4% reported witnessing or suspecting fraud among peers.[13] Unfortunately, the incidence of retracted scientific publications has been increasing in recent years.

In case of detection of serious scientific misconduct due to plagiarism, duplication publications, etc., the retraction of article may be ordered by the EiC. These situations are best avoided by careful scrutiny during the processing of the manuscript. But if detected or reported subsequently, the EiC must take a decision in the long-term interest and reputation of the journal and also to avoid any legal or copyright issues in future.

Consensus Guidelines, and Primary and Secondary Publications

Although duplicate publication is considered unethical, there are situations where secondary publications are permitted. For instance, consensus guidelines or position papers may be shared across multiple journals to effectively reach a broader readership.

Primary publications present original research findings, whereas secondary publications may summarize primary research but must clearly reference the original source.

Best Practices

The ICMJE allows for secondary publication if the primary research is sufficiently acknowledged in the secondary publication in another journal. The fact that it is a “secondary publication” is also clearly mentioned. The permission from the editor of the primary publication also must be obtained by the editor of the journal before publishing the secondary publication.[13] The topic and names and sequence of authors should be the same in case primary and secondary publications are similar.

For example, if consensus guidelines authored by authors from different specialties are published in one professional society journal, these may be published in other professional society journal after following the ICJME guidelines mentioned above.

Role of Statisticians in Manuscript Review

Many editors/reviewers may not have a comprehensive understanding of advanced statistical methods, leading to potential lack of understanding of statistical analysis of complex data and misinterpretation of results. In addition, it is essential to correct statistical errors, if any, as these can significantly undermine the validity of study findings.

In radiology, where manuscripts have complex statistical analyses, review of the manuscript by statisticians during peer review is crucial to verify the accuracy of the data analysis and to ensure that the methods used are appropriate and the conclusions are valid. This is in line with the recommendations of the ICJME.

Reputed journals include experienced statisticians in the reviewer pool. The manuscripts involving clinical trials or large data sets must be peer reviewed, ideally by two statisticians and, if required, articles must be sent back to the authors for corrections/modifications.

Decision-Making: Balancing Quality and Timeliness

The EiC's decision-making role is crucial in balancing the quality of research and the need for timely decision and publication. All articles should be peer reviewed by at least two subject experts. Often, conflicting divergent reviewer opinions are obtained from two reviewers. In such a scenario, the EiC has to navigate these discrepancies and send it to a third trusted subject expert reviewer for review. It two out of three reviews are in favor of modifications, the authors should be given a chance to incorporate suggestions, even if it entails some delay in the decision on the article.

Best Practices

Collaborative approach and consensus decision-making: The EiC should consult with the joint/associate editors to make informed decisions when faced with conflicting remarks on the manuscript. This collaborative approach ensures a balanced decision-making process in the interest of the fair approach policy of the journal.

Clarity of communication and transparency: The EiC must communicate clearly with authors about the reasons for a decision such as acceptance, rejection, or revision. It helps maintain transparency and integrity.

Maintaining Confidentiality and Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

The EiC must ensure confidentiality during the peer review and processing of the manuscript to maintain the integrity of the journal. Moreover, conflicts of interest must be addressed and managed to avoid bias in the entire process of publication. Any editor involved in the manuscript as author/coauthor, or having any conflict of interest, must excuse himself or herself from the entire process for that particular manuscript.

Signing of confidentiality agreements: All reviewers and editors should sign confidentiality agreements, ensuring that unpublished research remains protected during the review process.

In practice, this aspect of requirement is generally overlooked by the EiC.

Language Correction and Manuscript Clarity

The EiC and editors have to ensure that scientific research being considered should be clearly communicated to maximize its impact and avoid misinterpretation. Many authors, particularly beginners and non-native English speakers, may struggle with clarity in their manuscripts, affecting the quality of the research presentation.

Best Practices

Language editing services: Journals should encourage authors, particularly beginners and non-English speakers, to use professional language editing services such as Editage before submission.[14]

Professional copyediting: Once a manuscript has been accepted, it should undergo thorough copyediting to improve language clarity without altering the scientific content. This practice is followed by almost all reputed journals.

Ethical Standards and Research Integrity

Ensuring Research Ethics

The EiC has one of the most critical responsibilities to ensure that manuscripts meet ethical standards. This includes verifying that all clinical studies have been approved by the appropriate IRB/IEC and that the rights of patients and participants are protected. The EiC may ask the authors for approval letters, informed consent forms, etc., to verify the same, particularly for clinical studies involving high risk or vulnerable population.

Failure to produce evidence of IRB/EC approval by authors may result in rejection of the manuscript without further processing.

Permissions for Using Published Images in Books

Authors often seek permission to use images or figures previously published in a journal for inclusion in books or other publications. Since they give copyrights of their manuscript to the journal at the time of submission of the article, even they need to take written permission in accordance with the copyright laws and journal policies.

Example: If an author who earlier published radiological images in his or her article subsequently wants to use any image/images from the article in a book, he or she must obtain permission from the publisher to ensure legal compliance.

Generally, these permissions are granted online/in writing for academic purposes and not for commercial use. This practice is important to ensure that the original source is properly cited and copyright laws are respected.

Collaboration with Editors of Other Journals

The EiC must build a harmonious relationship with editors of other reputed journals as communication with their counterparts is crucial for seeking opinion especially on issues such as duplicate submissions, unethical behavior, or consensus guidelines, dealing with conflicts, and maintaining ethical standards. The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) is an excellent form for editors of peer reviewed medical journals. It has multiple committees dealing with various processes of scientific publishing. It also helps identify predatory or pseudo-journals.

Best Practices

Cross-journal collaboration: The EiC should establish channels of communication with editors of related journals to handle conflict situations such as simultaneous submissions, change of authorship after acceptance of article, salami or duplicate publications, or requests for manuscript transfers.

Conflict resolution: In the cases where editorial disagreements arise between journals (such as proprietary disputes), the EiC should approach these matters diplomatically, adhering to COPE's conflict resolution guidelines.

Educating Young Researchers, Prospective Authors, and Residents to Write Quality Articles

There is lack of formal training in academic writing during residency and for young researchers. Moreover, first-time authors find it difficult to navigate complex submission guidelines of journals. Hence, every reputed medical journal must invest in the next generation of researchers to maintain a high standard. It must educate prospective authors and residents on the art of writing quality manuscripts to ensure regular submission of high-quality manuscripts.

Best Practices

Workshops and seminars: The EiC in association with the parent professional association must organize manuscript writing workshops and seminars for residents and early-career radiologists to assist them in learning how to organize manuscripts, perform proper statistical analyses, and follow ethical standards. These sessions should address common difficulties, including responding to reviewer comments and managing manuscript revisions.

Online resources: Journals should provide authors with access to writing templates, and examples of formats of well-written articles. Such initiative can help prospective authors to understand the requirements for submission of manuscript.

Example: Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging organizes a special session on various aspects of academic publishing during its annual conference of Indian Radiological Imaging Association (IRIA). In addition, during annual conferences of state chapters of IRIA and CMEs organized by the Indian College of Radiology and Imaging, a lecture/session on manuscript writing and academic publishing is also included. Similarly, the Radiological Society of North America holds sessions on academic writing and ethics at their annual meeting, for early-career researchers on manuscript preparation.

Utilizing the Advisory Board for Journal Growth

The EiC has a valuable resource in the form of an advisory board, composed of proven leaders and experts in the specialty of radiology. The advisory board can help shape the journal's future direction, provide strategic insights, plan special theme-based issues, and advise on improving the indexing and impact factor. Unfortunately, in practice, the EiC hardly engages with the advisory board members, and their presence on the editorial page of journal is relegated to a ceremonial role.

Best Practices

Engaging advisory board members: The EiC should regularly consult the advisory board on major editorial decisions, such as adopting new ethical guidelines, fast-tracking high-impact research, or resolving difficult cases of misconduct.

Strategic planning: Advisory board members can offer crucial insights into the journal's long-term goals, such as strategies to boost metrics, attract top-tier submissions, and expand readership. Utilizing their professional networks to invite impactful papers can further elevate the journal's reputation.

Example

The advisory board may suggest publishing special issues dedicated to emerging areas in radiology, such as artificial intelligence or precision imaging, which may play a key role in elevating the journal's impact.

Enhancing Journal Indexing and Impact

The long-term goal of the EiC is to improve the journal's visibility and citation rate. A higher impact factor not only increases the journal's reputation but also attracts more high-quality submissions.

Best Practices

High-impact studies: The EiCs should prioritize selecting groundbreaking research that advances the field of radiological science. These studies typically garner higher citation counts, contributing to an improved impact factor for the journal.

Collaboration with key opinion leaders: Building partnerships with prominent figures in radiology can help journals acquire impactful manuscripts that greatly enhance citation metrics.

Legal Responsibility

The EiC is also a legal custodian of the journal and has responsibility toward the owners of journals such as parent professional association and readers and is responsible for following best practices in academic publishing. He or she must deal with copyright issues, instances of serious misconduct, duplicate publications, and trick issues in consultation with the advisory board, members of the WAME, counterparts, and, if required, seek legal advice to ensure the reputation of the journal is upheld at all costs.

Conclusion

The EiC holds a vital and multifaceted position in navigating the complexities of radiology publishing. His or her responsibilities range from maintaining the quality and integrity of the manuscripts to overseeing the peer review process and upholding ethical standards. As the steward of scientific integrity and the journal's reputation, the EiC has to ensure that the journal remains a trusted platform for high-quality, ethical, and influential radiology research by following best practices and international guidelines.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• References

• 1 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Accessed December 6, 2024 at: http://www.icmje.org
• 2 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidelines. Accessed December 6, 2024 at: https://publicationethics.org
• 3 Bonekamp S, Halappa VG, Corona-Villalobos CP. et al. Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198 (06) 1247-1255
• 4 Eisenberg RL, Ngo L, Boiselle PM, Bankier AA. Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: assessment of frequency and associated factors. Radiology 2011; 259 (02) 479-486
• 5 Gotzsche PC, Kassirer JP. Ghost and guest authors in medical research: a crisis of trust. Pain Med 2023; 24 (05) 985-993
• 6 Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in six general medical journals. JAMA 2011; 306 (11) 1145-1150
• 7 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Updated January 2024. Accessed December 6, 2024 at: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
• 8 Higgins JR, Lin FC, Evans JP. Plagiarism in submitted manuscripts: incidence, characteristics and optimization of screening-case study in a major specialty medical journal. Res Integr Peer Rev 2016; 1: 13
• 9 Menshawey R, Menshawey E, Mitkees A. et al. A plagiarism paperdemic: determining plagiarism among COVID-19 articles in infectious disease journals between 2020 and 2021. Bull Natl Res Cent 2023; 47: 151
• 10 Kwee TC, Adams HJA, Kwee RM. Peer review practices by medical imaging journals. Insights Imaging 2020; 11 (01) 125
• 11 Ding D, Nguyen B, Gebel K, Bauman A, Bero L. Duplicate and salami publication: a prevalence study of journal policies. Int J Epidemiol 2020; 49 (01) 281-288
• 12 Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012; 109 (42) 17028-17033
• 13 Kwee RM, Almaghrabi MT, Kwee TC. Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research. Eur J Radiol 2022; 156: 110553
• 14 Editage. Language editing services. Accessed December 6, 2024 at: https://www.editage.com/

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
09. Januar 2025