[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row module_class=” et_pb_row_fullwidth et_pb_row_fullwidth et_pb_row_fullwidth” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ width_tablet=”80%” width_last_edited=”off|tablet” max_width_tablet=”80%” max_width_last_edited=”off|tablet” make_fullwidth=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ background_position=”top_left” custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_css_main_element=” display: flex;|| justify-content: center;” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
European Radiology Abdomen operates a single-blinded peer review<\/strong> process, where manuscripts sent to reviewers are no longer anonymized or blinded, but reviewers\u2019 names continue to be unknown to authors.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_heading title=”Guidelines for Reviewers” admin_label=”Guidelines for ReviewersHeading” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_heading][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ background_position=”top_left” custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Reviewer Reports” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ z_index_tablet=”500″ text_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” text_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” text_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” link_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” link_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” link_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” ul_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” ul_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” ul_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” ol_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” ol_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” ol_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” quote_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” quote_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” quote_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” header_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” header_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” header_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” header_2_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” header_2_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” header_2_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” header_3_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” header_3_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” header_3_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” header_4_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” header_4_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” header_4_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” header_5_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” header_5_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” header_5_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” header_6_text_shadow_horizontal_length_tablet=”0px” header_6_text_shadow_vertical_length_tablet=”0px” header_6_text_shadow_blur_strength_tablet=”1px” box_shadow_horizontal_tablet=”0px” box_shadow_vertical_tablet=”0px” box_shadow_blur_tablet=”40px” box_shadow_spread_tablet=”0px” border_style=”solid” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Reviewers ensure that European Radiology Abdomen publishes high-quality papers by evaluating manuscripts design and offering clear suggestions and guidance for improvement. Problematic unprofessional comments, lacking constructive criticism and hostile reviews are not allowed and editors will delete\/modify these comments from the author\u2019s reviews.<\/p>\n Reviewers are encouraged to follow COPE’s guidance on peer reviews. Mainly, reviewers should respect confidentiality in the review process, notify the journal if any conflict of interest is identified during the review process, and report if an irregularity has been identified with respect to the ethics of the publication. A competing conflict of interest exists when the review might be influenced by personal or financial relationship with authors or organizations.<\/p>\n Reviewer reports<\/strong><\/p>\n Peer review is a crucial tool to bring research forward by evaluating manuscripts and offering suggestions for improvement. The voluntary work of our reviewers is the key element in this process.<\/p>\n All reviewers for the ESR journals should be aware of their responsibility to guide authors by providing constructive feedback. In both the \u2018Feedback to Authors\u2019 as well as \u2018Confidential Comments to the Editor\u2019, they are asked to give their opinion and criticism in a professional, neutral language.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Articles Types Text” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ hover_enabled=”0″ border_style=”solid” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″ disabled_on=”on|on|on” disabled=”on”]<\/p>\n Article types<\/strong><\/p>\n The journal favors publishing on Critical Review, Guidelines and Position, Pictorial Review, Scientific, Meta-analysis, and Management papers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Review Checklist Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ border_style=”solid” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Review Checklist<\/strong><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text disabled_on=”on|on|on” admin_label=”Reviewer Classifications” _builder_version=”4.16″ hover_enabled=”0″ border_style=”solid” disabled=”on” global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n Reviewer Classifications<\/span> <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n Classifications Updated November 2018<\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row module_class=” et_pb_row_fullwidth et_pb_row_fullwidth et_pb_row_fullwidth” _builder_version=”4.16″ width=”94%” width_tablet=”80%” width_phone=”” width_last_edited=”on|desktop” max_width=”94%” max_width_tablet=”80%” max_width_phone=”” max_width_last_edited=”on|desktop” make_fullwidth=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ background_position=”top_left” custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_heading title=”Decision criteria” admin_label=”Decision Making Criteria Heading” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_heading][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ background_position=”top_left” custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Qualitative criteria Text” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ border_style=”solid” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Please consider both, qualitative and quantitative criteria, when making a decision:<\/p>\n Qualitative criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n Any methodological question, potential misunderstanding, major discrepancy between different parts of the manuscript should qualify for a “Reject & Resubmit” decision; changes suggested for better understanding, easier reading, or better connection of the data and the text might qualify for a revision.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Please consider the following qualities of your report:<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Quantitative Criteria Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ border_style=”solid” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Quantitative criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n If there are multiple minor points of criticism, this can turn a minor revision into a major one. Please keep in mind that “Accept” is usually not an appropriate suggestion for a first revision, and that a manuscript should be rejected if changes would, most likely, result in a new design and methodology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Please consider the following manuscript criteria:<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row module_class=” et_pb_row_fullwidth et_pb_row_fullwidth et_pb_row_fullwidth” _builder_version=”4.16″ width=”94%” width_tablet=”80%” width_phone=”” width_last_edited=”on|desktop” max_width=”94%” max_width_tablet=”80%” max_width_phone=”” max_width_last_edited=”on|desktop” make_fullwidth=”on” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ background_position=”top_left” custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_heading title=”Ethical and scientific standards” admin_label=”Ethical and scientific standards Heading” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_heading][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ background_position=”top_left” custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Standards Text” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ border_style=”solid” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Our journal adheres to the current international standards in scientific publishing. We follow the COPE<\/a> (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, and suggest to all scientists to be familiar with the following available guidelines and checklists:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ background_position=”top_left” custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_heading title=”Information about CME” admin_label=”Information about CME Heading” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_heading][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ background_position=”top_left” custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Standards Text” _builder_version=”4.21.0″ border_style=”solid” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Reviewers can claim CME with the European Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (UEMS) for performed reviewing activities carried out within the scope of editorial procedures for journals indexed in PubMed.<\/p>\n CME can be claimed for reviews performed from January 1, 2017 onwards. The application requires a one-time fee of 20\u20ac (VAT excluded) and a confirmation from the editor of the journal (letter or email including date of review).<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n