ArticleThe Indian journal of radiology & imaging2025
Navigating the Editorial Gauntlet for Excellence in Radiology Publishing.
Article in The Indian journal of radiology & imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.