Reviewer Guidelines

Double-blind Review

This journal uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author names are not allowed to be revealed to one another for a manuscript under review. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.

Title Page (with author details): This should include the title, authors' names, affiliations, and a complete address for the corresponding author, including telephone and email address.

Blinded manuscript (no author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, and tables) should not include any identifying information, such as the authors' names or affiliations.

Peer Review Guide: To evaluate an article sent from the system, follow the steps below:

  • Please log in using your ID and password.
  • Join the Journal Panel of Rad & Mol Image
  • Log in to the reviewer panel.
  • Click on the title of the article that has been assigned to you for peer review from the new invitation section.
  • You will be asked to accept or deny the peer review in the pop-up page.

For the acceptance of peer review, please click on the “Accept the Review” button in the green section.

  • You will be able to view the full article in the "Documents" section after accepting the review.
  • After reviewing the article, please complete the review form in the “Reviews” section. Please upload the review file if available.
  • Lastly, click the button "Send the Review" located on the right side of the page.

Peer Review Processes

RAMI, the referees are selected from among the experts in the subjects covered in the articles. All selected referees are informed about the responsibilities, ethical principles, article evaluation criteria, and procedures of the journal.

  • Reviewers must take into account the "Responsibilities of Reviewers and Ethical Principles to be Followed" and "Reviewing Processes" after accepting peer review requests on the system.
  • Reviewers should only accept reviewing articles for which they have the necessary expertise to conduct an appropriate review, respect the confidentiality of blind peer review, and keep the article details confidential at all times.
  • Reviewers invited to review articles are expected to submit their decision to accept or reject the review within 7 days. If the reviewer does not make a decision by the end of this period, they are considered to have rejected the review, and the editor will assign a new reviewer. The reviewers who accept the review are expected to express their opinions within 15 days from the date of accepting the invitation. An additional period of up to 15 days is granted to the referee who does not complete the review process within the specified timeframe, upon request from the reviewer. If the referee does not request additional time, a new referee can be appointed.
  • Each reviewer who accepts the invitation to review is asked to fill in a review form and declare their acceptance or rejection opinions about the article by providing specific reasons.

In this review form, the referees are expected to express their opinions on the following issues:

  1. Title and Content Consistency
  2. Language and Expression of the Article
  3. Systematic Compliance with Scientific Criteria
  4. Defining Scope and Conceptual Framework
  5. Subject Integrity
  6. Defining the Problem
  7. Review of Previous Studies (Literature Review)
  8. Research Methodology
  9. Presentation, Organization, and Consistency of Information
  10. Critical Perspective
  11. Accessing New Scientific Studies
  12. Getting Results
  13. Consistency of Research Findings and Rational Relationship with Results
  14. Contribution to the Field

 

The reviewers provide feedback on these issues by selecting one of the following options: Adequate, Not Sufficient, Partially Sufficient, Mostly Sufficient. The referees do not need to approve all of these issues for the article to be published. However, in the review form, suggestions regarding the parts marked as "Not Sufficient" and "Partially Sufficient," as well as other feedback for the author, should be provided in the "Note to the Author" section.

• After completing this form, the referees can make the following decisions:

  • o Revise manuscript (major revision)
  • o Revise manuscript (minor revision)
  • o The article is not suitable for publication. (Reject)
  • o The article can be published as it is. (Accept)

Rad & Mol Image engages two external peer reviewers who are not part of the journal's editorial board. If one of the peer review reports is positive and the other is negative, the article is sent to a third reviewer. A single peer review report is sufficient for the rejection of a manuscript, but at least two peer review reports are required for its acceptance. If one of the peer review reports "Accept" or "Minor Revision" and the other "Major Revision," and the editor's opinion favors accepting the article, the manuscript is sent back to the same reviewer after the author makes the corrections. The article is either rejected or sent to a third peer reviewer, depending on the opinion of the reviewer who has issued the report with a "Major Revision" requirement.

The reviewer requesting a revision may ask for a re-evaluation of the article after the revision. An additional 15 days are allotted to the reviewer for this evaluation. Reviewers can contact the editor through messaging section for additional guidance or to report any suspected violations. Correspondence here is not visible to the authors. The data from articles based on field research or data analysis can be requested by the referee from the editor for a thorough review of the analyses in the article. The editor of the journal communicates with the author regarding this matter and then forwards the data to the reviewer.

Reviewers should not have any conflicts of interest related to the research, authors, and/or research funders. When a conflict of interest is foreseen, the referee should contact the editorial board and disclose a potential conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Framework published by COPE will be taken into account in addressing any conflicts of interest that may arise.

Reviewers are not allowed to utilize the data from the articles they have reviewed before publication or disclose this data to others. The names of the reviewers who conduct evaluations for the journal are not disclosed or published.

After Acceptance

Online proofreading: To ensure a fast publication process of the article, we kindly ask authors to provide us with their proof corrections within two days. Corresponding authors will receive an email with a link to our online proofing system, which allows for annotation and correction of proofs online. The platform resembles MS Word: besides editing text, users can also provide comments on figures/tables and respond to queries from the Copy Editor. Web-based proofreading offers a quicker and more reliable process by enabling you to input your corrections directly, thus eliminating the possibility of introducing errors.

If preferred, you can still choose to annotate and upload your edits on the PDF version. All instructions for proofreading will be provided in the email we send to authors, including alternative methods to access the online version and PDF.

Please use this proof only for checking the typesetting, editing, completeness, and correctness of the text, tables, and figures. Significant changes to the article as accepted for publication will only be considered at this stage with permission from the editor. It is important to ensure that all corrections are sent back to us in one communication. Please check carefully before replying, as the inclusion of any subsequent corrections cannot be guaranteed. Proofreading is solely your responsibility.

Become a Reviewer

We are always looking for new peer reviewers. If you would like to volunteer, please register for an account at our online editorial office to be added to our reviewer database. When you create an account, please fill in details such as keywords and special interests to appear in our reviewer database searches.

We invite medical students to review manuscripts for RAMI Student. If you are a student or a newly qualified doctor, please include the term “student” under special interests in the personal information section of your account.

We hope that Rad & Mol Image's reviewers will also be committed to improving peer review. If you would like to opt out of involvement in such research, please let us know by emailing editor@radamol.com.