Writing and Reviewing Papers for Medical Physics

William R. Hendee, Editor Penny Slattery, Journal Manager Andrew Karellas, Deputy Editor

David Rogers, Deputy Editor Jeff Williamson, Incoming Editor

AAPM  Gross  Revenue  

Citation Impact Factors

Free articles on Medical Physics website

w  Medical Physics Letters w  50th Anniversary Papers w  Vision 20/20 Papers w  Point/Counterpoint w  Editor’s Picks w  Award Papers w  Review Papers w  Special Focus Papers w  Editorials w  PhD Abstracts w  Books and Publications

Open Access Articles in Medical Physics

w Medical Physics is a hybrid Gold OA journal w Authors select to have their manuscript OA w Fee is $2,500.00 w Reviewers do not know if manuscript is to be

OA w When OA article is published, a FREE icon

appears next to article title in TOC

Types of Articles in Medical Physics

w Research articles w Vision 20/20 articles w Review articles (on-line only) w Task group reports (on-line only) w Technical reports w Technical notes w Medical Physics Letter

Types of Articles in Medical Physics

w Special reports w Correspondence w Point-counterpoint debates w Editorials w PhD abstracts (on-line only) w Errata w Book reports

Categories of Papers in Medical Physics

w ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY w BOOKS AND PUBLICATIONS w CORRESPONDENCE w EDITORIAL w  INFRARED AND MICROWAVE

IMAGING w MAGNETIC RESONANCE PHYSICS

Categories of Papers in Medical Physics

w MEDICAL PHYSICS LETTER w NUCLEAR MEDICINE PHYSICS w OPTICAL PHYSICS w POINT/COUNTERPOINT w RADIATION BIOLOGY w RADIATION IMAGING PHYSICS w RADIATION MEASUREMENT PHYSICS

Categories of Papers in Medical Physics

w RADIATION PROTECTION PHYSICS w RADIATION THERAPY PHYSICS w TASK GROUP REPORT w THERMOTHERAPY PHYSICS w TISSUE MEASUREMENTS w ULTRASOUND PHYSICS w VISION 20/20

Types of Authors

w First author w Co-authors w Corresponding author w Senior author

Multimedia Submissions

w  EPAPS – Electronic Physics Auxiliary Publication

Service, repository for supplemental information w  http://www.aip.org/pubservs/epaps.html w  Multi-media w  http://www.aip.org/epaps/epaps_multimedia.html

n  Movie files n  Audio files n  Animated .gifs n  3D renderings

Preparing a Manuscript for

Medical Physics

w  Medical Physics on-line submission site http://medphys.peerx-press.org/cgi-bin/main.plex

w  AIP Style Guide

http://www.aip.org/pubservs/style/4thed/toc.html http://www.aip.org/pubservs/authserv.html

Editorial Process Overview

w  Authors submit manuscript w  Journal Manager checks manuscript format/compliance w  Editor assigns associate editor w  Associate editor assigns referees w  Referees submit reviews to associate editor w  Associate editor makes recommendation to editor w  Editor makes decision w  Decision communicated to authors w  Process may repeat through several iterations

Manuscript Validation by the

Journal Manager

w  Initial QC w  Check for cover letter, manuscript file with title

page and structured abstract included w  If revision, look for point-by-point response w  Manuscript file as Word or Tex document, single

column, double spaced w  Tables and figures included in article where

mentioned w  For revision, figures also listed in separate figure

files and numbered correctly

References

w Should be assigned consecutive numbers w Should then be listed in the same order on a

separate sheet w Titles of articles, complete lists of authors,

and inclusive pagination must be included w A list of standard abbreviations for journal

names appears in the AIP Style Manual

Line Numbering Your Article File

w  Reviewers have requested that authors insert line numbering

w  Done for ease of reviewing w  Authors can use in their point-by-point response w  Guidelines for line numbering can be found at

http://www.medphys.org/NewInstructions.asp

Common Manuscript Deficiencies

w  Incorrect grammar w  Illogical composition w  Obscure writing w  Verbose writing w  Deviation from AIP Style Manual w  Poor illustrations w  Mathematical errors

Common Manuscript Deficiencies

w Over-reaching of results w  Inadequate literature review w Plagiarism and self-plagiarism w Multiplication of papers w Separation of supplemental material

Helpful Hints for PeerX-Press

w  For technical help, email pxphelp@aip.org w  Approve converted files w  Run Spell Check w  Check figure numbers w  Address cover letter to correct Editor w  Include correct email address w  Check and double check the presentation of

the files

Authors’ Response to Reviews

w Courteous and fair w Accept or challenge w Annotated response w Rapid response (3 month deadline) w Decision appeal

Excess Page Fees

w Charged if published article exceeds 10 journal pages

w Cost is $200.00 per page w  To approximate article length, divide double

spaced, single column text pages by three, and total number of figures by four

w  If cannot pay excess page fee, do not exceed 10 journal pages

Criteria for Associate Editors

and Referees

w Expertise in topic of manuscript w Publication experience w Maturity in field w No conflicts of interest w Responsive to previous requests w Timely responsiveness w Thorough and courteous reviews

Guidelines for Referees

w  Comments to authors and to editor w  General and specific comments and

recommendations w  Critical and impersonal evaluation w  Original, unpublished work w  Accuracy, originality and completeness w  Clarity and succinctness of writing w  Grammatical and compositional errors

Guidelines for Referees (continued)

w Quality and necessity of illustrations/tables w Comprehensiveness of literature review w Paper and reference format w Relevance of title and structured abstract w Appropriateness of subject w Negative comments

What Follows the Decision Process

w Notification w Acceptance letter w Manuscript is put in production queue w Copy-editing w Galley Proofs w Author Sign-off

Publication in Journal

w Accelerated On line publication w Appearance in Print

Authorship Criteria and Dave’s rules for plots

D. W. O. Rogers Carleton Laboratory for

Radiotherapy Physics, Physics Dept,

Carleton University Ottawa

http://www.physics.carleton.ca/~drogers AAPM Indianapolis Aug 6, 2013

2/25

Authorship guidelines

•  all authors must deserve being authors

•  all those who deserve being authors, must be authors

•  all authors carry responsibility for content of paper

-they must have read it!

3/25

Authorship requirements

•  Substantial contribution to:

–  Conception and design

–  Acquisition of data

–  Data analysis/interpretation

•  Draft/revise manuscript

•  Final approval

4/25

Authorship guidelines (NRCC)

•  the concept, design and planning of project •  performance of research •  interpretation of data •  writing or review of manuscript

Substantial involvement in at least two of following must be fulfilled to deserve authorship.

Implications: -people only helping do experiments are not authors (named in acknowledgements);

- not all authors are involved in data collection

5/25

Authorship guidelines

•  Intl Committee of Medical Journal Editors: “Acquisition of funding, collection of data or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship”

•  Ann. Surgery consensus statement on authorship: “Acquisition of funding, collection of data, contributing cases or general supervision of the research group, of itself, or just being Chair of the department, does not justify authorship if the criteria are not fulfilled”

•  NRC: Being the manager responsible for a research group or research project does not, of itself, justify authorship.

6/25

Random thoughts on refereeing

•  refereeing is a critical part of our responsibility as scientists

•  please turn down a request to referee a paper –  if you do not have time to do it in the requested

2 weeks –  if you have a conflict of interest

•  e.g. working on a similar paper and it would be to your benefit if this paper was slowed down

•  personal animosity with one of the authors (after all, doing a good refereeing job will help the author, so why do it for an enemy?)

7/25

Dave’s rules for figures

•  thoughts on proper graphs

-(as imposed on my own students)

•  figures can be most important part of a paper

–  many people decide whether to read a paper by skimming the figures

8/25

1) labels should be lower case -except where capitals are mandatory (eg MeV, Gy) -experts agree: lower case is far easier to read

9/25

10/25

2) always use axes and tick marks on all 4 sides

11/25

4 axes with ticks

11/27

12/25

3) # ticks commensurate with accuracy

What is the ratio at 1 cm? How close can you be to get

1% accuracy?

13/25

4) axis labels have a uniform # digits

13/27

14/25

5) choose axis limits/forms to use area effectively

Use ratios to compare two nearly equal quantities

15/25

5) choose axis limits/forms to use area effectively

wasted space

wasted space

People often use ranges which are 30% too large => 50% of

space is useless

16/25

6) use arrows and labels rather than legends if possible

These are far too busy for use in a talk and possibly

even in a paper

Added advantage: labels make the above work in black

and white too.

17/25

7) make symbols & lines work in B&W, even if colour used for on-line version(referees use B&W printers)

18/25

7) make symbols & lines work in B&W, even if colour used for on-line version(referees use B&W printers)

19/25

8) make sure all lines and font sizes are thick enough after reduction: figure will be 8.5 cm wide

20/25

9) use a consistent, clear font (I prefer helvitica or arial)

21/25

10) roughly square figures work best in the journal

•  Maximum width is about 8.7 cm = column width

•  Height is adjusted as needed, but a tall narrow figure will be shrunk laterally.

22/25

11) do not use titles/legends outside the axes

Graph on left makes far better use of the space

23/25

12) axis labels: quantity / units (SI) (personal preference)

Whatever style you use, make sure the quantity being plotted is clearly labelled and

the units clearly specified.

The ICRU points out that we can only plot

numbers, so what the axis should be is the quantity divided

by the unit.

24/25

13) Captions should be self-contained

•  People skim a paper by looking at the figures.

• 

•  Make the captions as self-contained as reasonable, but don’t repeat things.

•  This will make your paper have more impact.

25/25

Thank you for your attention

Good luck with your next paper J

The future of medical physics publishing:

Sustaining and growing our field’s premier forum for scientific exchange

Jeffrey F. Williamson, Ph.D.

The Department of Radiation Oncology

Virginia Commonwealth University

Outline

•  Core values and mission •  Challenges to medical physics research and

scientific publishing •  Editorial vision – Revised editorial model – Proposed initiatives

New Editorial Model •  With growth of journal, Editor’s responsibility

has evolved into a full-time position •  Starting January, 2014, a new model – Jeff Williamson, Editor-in-Chief (50%) – Mitch Goodsitt, Imaging Physics Editor (25%) – Shiva Das, Therapy Physics Editor (25%)

•  Under Bill Hendee’s and Colin Orton’s leadership, Medical Physics has become the pre-eminent international journal in our field

Medical Physics: Core Mission •  Identify and publish the best science defining our

research identity and our future clinical trajectory – Researchers: MP defines peer community of mentors,

reviewers, competitors, and collaborators and provides critical platform for exchange of ideas – Clinicians: portal for exporting best science into clinic – MP niche: Research that addresses clinical problems

via sophisticated applied math or experimental techniques

•  Editor’s role – Reflect MP practice by providing fair, efficient, and

expert peer review: sort good from not as good – Lead the field by anticipating research trends

Disciplinary Domains, MP Readership, and Shifting Markets

Medical Physicists:

Therapy and Imaging

Engineers, Biologists, and

other basic scientists

Physicians

•  Physics/Engineering- driven MP work –  MP highly competitive –  center of mass (COM)

shifting towards imaging –  Is COM moving from MP to

Eng/Comp Sci? •  Clinical translation and

validation –  MD’s are key investigators –  Involves testing on patient

data or Phase I/II trial –  MP not competing as well

•  Two audiences –  Active researchers –  Clinicians who read MP but

do not publish

Specialty

journals

‘Traditional MP’:

Dosimetry, QA, Linear Systems ‘M

oder

n M

P’:

mul

ti-di

sc

Editorial Board and Associate Editors •  Create board of 100-120 AEs with 3 year term – More recognition for contributions – Expectation: Manage 10 articles/year – Training and evaluation – More uniform performance and policy implementation

•  Smaller more active Editorial Board – Advise editorial team, formulate policy, serve as AEs – Implement initiatives via Task Groups

»  TG 1: Review process efficiency, quality, selectivity »  TG 2: accessibility, readability, and interactivity »  TG 3: Data mining and evaluation of Journal quality »  TG 4: Outreach: Non-MP scientific/ clinical communities

Task Group 1: Improving review process efficiency, quality, and

selectivity •  Create formal Associate Editor pool •  Improving process

– Develop AE and Referee templates and numerical impact scores – Training and revised instructions for AEs and

Referees – Improving PXP or alternative platform workflows

•  Increasing selectivity of Journal •  Code of conduct/ethics •  Study alternative peer review models

Why increase selectivity?

•  Growth is unsustainable

•  Increase focus on – Best science – Widely read guidance,

review, and opinion

TG 2: Interactivity and social media •  Better marketing/promotion of Med Phys content •  Experiment with interactivity and social media:

blog-like electronic forums – Add interactivity to selected MP content E.g., Make “Point/Counterpoint” a real dialogue with community – Past Precedents:

»  PLoS journals » Atom Chem Phys open, online peer review

•  Goals: – Have fun debating controversial issues – Improve value of MP as a platform for scientific

exchange by facilitating peer-to-peer interaction – Clinical readers: encourage reader- author interaction

Post-Pub Interactive Public/Peer Discussion

TG-3 Quality Metrics •  Revive Gary Fullerton data mining effort – Market composition and growth – Individual article scientific impact – Reader satisfaction – Overall journal and review quality

•  Article quality – Total number of citations in 2, 5, and 10 year intervals – Use data mining to assess

» What makes a good article? » Who funds the research? Professional identity of

contributors? Who is our scientific market?

•  Reader satisfaction and audience composition – Downloads, page views, advertising hits

Shifts of Research Domain •  Key questions

for data mining – Who are the

PI’s? – how inter-

disciplinary? – Who is funding

research?

•  The Journal needs to – ‘Follow’ its research community if it expands

beyond radiology/Rad Onc depts – Identify its readership and address its changing

needs

Courtesy: Gary Fullerton

Quantitative Studies: Peer Review Effectiveness

•  ‘Effectiveness of Peer Review’ metric (EPR) defined

•  Correlation with JIF assessed for 28 Am Psych Assoc Journals

•  Citation rate corrected for exposure interval

⋅⎡ ⎤= ⎢ ⎥⋅⎣ ⎦

⇒

(accepted|good) (rejected|bad)log(bad|accepted) (good|rejected)

where  'bad' not  cited  even  once

P PEPRP P

Ma Scientometrics 2013

TG-4: Tracking Expanding MP Boundaries •  Potential new or growing audiences – Radiologists and Radiation Oncologists – Engineers (BME and EE), computer scientists,

biologists – Asian and European markets

•  Strategies – Invite targeted community reps onto BoE – Become peer-review venue for specialty meetings

» Examples: QUANTEC and SPIE – Favorable terms for individual e-subscription – Track QI indicators to see what works – Very different challenges presented by 3 groups

» Building MD readership will be challenging