Guidelines for Review of AJR Manuscripts

With gratitude to our loyal and skilled reviewers, we offer the following comments as guidelines for performing a thorough manuscript review. Depending on the type of manuscript under review, the sections listed below may or may not apply. We hope that this will be of some value, especially for new reviewers.

Brief summary of manuscript:
What is the intent of the study?
What conclusions do the authors reach?
Do you believe this study has previously been published in whole or in part?

Abstract:
Does the Abstract appropriately summarize the manuscript?
Are there discrepancies between the Abstract and the remainder of the manuscript?
Not all manuscript types require an Abstract. The requirements are defined in the “Types of Articles” section of the AJR Guidelines for Authors. Familiarize yourself with the new guidelines relevant to the new web-based submission process.

Introduction:
Is the Introduction concise?
Do the authors define terms used in the remainder of the manuscript?
If this manuscript is an Original Research article, is there a well-defined hypothesis?

Methods:
Are the Methods clearly outlined? Could another investigator reproduce the study using these Methods as a guide or are the Methods unclear?

Results:
Are the Results of the study clearly summarized?
Are the Results reasonable and expected, or are they unexpected?
Are there Results that are introduced that are not preceded by an appropriate Discussion in the Methods?

Discussion:
Is the Discussion concise? If not, how should it be shortened?
If this is an Original Research article, is the hypothesis verified or falsified?
If there are unexpected results, do the authors explain the unexpected findings?
Do the authors note limitations of the study? Should other limitations be noted?

Figures:
Are the Figures appropriate and are they appropriately labeled? Do they adequately show the important Results? Are there redundant Figures?

Tables:
If there are Tables, do they appropriately describe the Results? Should one or more Tables be added or deleted?

References:
Are the References appropriate?
Are there important References that are not mentioned that should be noted? Or, are there more References than necessary?

Summary:
Please summarize your opinion of the manuscript.
Is the information presented novel or does the study simply replicate results of other investigators.
If this is a Clinical Observation Report, have the imaging findings been previously described?
Do not spend time on correcting typographical errors, or solving language problems, unless the meaning of words used in the manuscript will lead to confusion or error. In such a case, clarification would be helpful. Our copy editors are expert at refining the text of the manuscripts. They also validate the accuracy of numbers in the text or tables. The role of the reviewer is to deal with the substantive issues in the paper.

Recommendation:
Try to be decisive. Using the numbering system of the reviewing system, please make your manuscript rating number selections coincide reasonably with your final recommendation. If the recommendation is to reject, please provide some language in the review, which highlights some of the shortcomings of the manuscript. If there are more sensitive issues to be conveyed to the editor, use the confidential note to the editor space provided.
A favorable (or sometimes glowing) review, accompanying a recommendation to reject, produces a problem for the editor and confusion for the author. Alternatively, attacks on the integrity or family lineage of an author should be avoided. The authors do see the reviews, which are carefully reviewed by the editor for possible inappropriate comments. But there is a slight risk that unkind comments could make their way to the author. The Golden Rule should generally apply.