| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Irogers@ajroffice.org
I have long prided myself on making my own phone calls. Placing my own calls seemed both more personal and more efficient. That way, I can leave messages for those who are not available. It usually requires no more than two or three days before I hear from them. In the past, that delay didn't seem too bad.
However, business telephone service has deteriorated. In the old days, a real, live person answered your call. And I was able to speak with maybe one in eight of the people called. Now you are fortunate if you speak to an actual person in one of eight calls. Never mind actually talking to your intended. Instead, you are greeted by the electronic speech of voice mail.
"Your call is being answered by [insert name of obnoxious provider of voice mail]."
"Your call is important to us. Please stay on the line."
"The mailbox of the person you are calling is full. Please hang up and try again."
"If you want X, press 1; if you want Y, press 2."
And on and on.
Then there is the mail system, which is not all you might think it should be, particularly the institutional distribution systems in hospitals and medical schools. Mail may languish in the bowels of some hospitals or medical schools for days; delivery may take as much as a week.
To avoid such delays, authors both here and abroad, as well as a number of AJR manuscript reviewers, have requested that manuscripts be sent to their home addresses, and that does work, significantly shortening the time that manuscripts reside in the mails.
Fortunately, there is now another option at our disposal. To circumvent difficulties encountered with the mails and telephones, the AJR Editorial Office has increasingly turned to e-mail. Next to the cell phone, e-mail appears to be the best means of getting someone's attention. Those who have access to e-mail check it frequently and respond promptly.
E-mail is highly efficient and straightforward—after reading the message, all you need do is click on Reply, type few words, and when finished, click on Send—that's it. E-mail is easier and quicker and more reliable than a phone call.
Most authors and reviewers have e-mail and supply the Editorial Office with e-mail addresses. In such cases, communications between the AJR Editorial Office and authors are conducted by e-mail in addition to the usual letters sent by "snail" mail. Both e-mail and letters are sent the same day—e-mails arrive instantaneously; letters take a while. Indeed, each editorial decision on a manuscript, other than a rejection, generates an e-mail. This includes acknowledgment of receipt of submissions, advice about delays in editorial decisions occasioned by the need for additional reviews, acceptance of manuscripts pending satisfactory revision, and acceptance for publication.
Our use of e-mail has been well received, even applauded, by authors. Therefore, beginning January 2, 2002, the AJR Editorial Office will cease our duplication of efforts and will send only e-mail to acknowledge receipt of manuscripts to be reviewed (or re-reviewed). Notice of acceptance also will be done by e-mail only (except for authors who lack e-mail addresses). Supply an e-mail address, all you corresponding authors, and, with your next submission to the AJR, receive the same service.
There are, of course, other potential uses of e-mail. Documents and files can be attached to e-mail—for instance, the text of a manuscript and TIFF or JPEG files of images. Voilà! Authors could submit manuscripts online, thus circumventing the delays and expense of the mails. Similarly, the Editorial Office could send such electronic manuscripts out for review by e-mail. The entire editorial process could eventually go online and become paperless, resulting in a considerable cost reduction for the Journal—indeed, significant savings for all involved.
There are now vendors—PaperPath, Scholar-One, and Rapid Review, to name only three—that address the requirements of online editorial systems for scientific journals: specifically, the accessioning, reviewing, and tracking of manuscripts.
As presently constituted, however, all such online programs that we have seen seem complicated and cumbersome for authors and, as yet, do not allow blinding of the authorship of manuscripts. We at the AJR insist on the blinding of authorship in the belief that it facilitates unbiased reviews. (In fact, the AJR double-blinds the review of manuscripts to assure that reviewers do not know the names of each other or the authors, nor the authors, the names of the reviewers.)
By and large, those medical journals that now review manuscripts by e-mail are not committed to blinding the authorship of manuscripts, nor are these journals concerned about the quality of images. Articles published in such journals, as general rule, contain few, if any, images.
Radiology is an image-based specialty. To compromise image quality would severely hamper reviewers in their assessment of manuscripts. We must insist that images, when transmitted and viewed by the reviewer, be of the highest quality and as true to the original as possible to ensure fair and satisfactory reviews.
We recognize the potential of an online, paperless editorial process. The Publication Committee of the ARRS and the editorial and production staff of the AJR will continue to closely monitor the development of online manuscript reviewing and tracking systems.
Undoubtedly, at some future date, maybe sooner instead of later, a system will emerge that meets our requirements, and then the AJR editorial process will go online, fully paperless.
We'll keep you informed—by e-mail, of course.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
