Peer review policy
Once a manuscript has been submitted, the following steps are followed:
1. The Editor assesses the submitted material for compatibility with the journal’s
guidelines (anonymity of authors and institution in the files that are referred toreviewers, anonymity of patient data in text and images).
2. If everything is in order, the relevant Section Editor is notified and sends the material
to two reviewers of the appropriate field of expertise of his/her own choice. The
review process is double-blinded: the reviewers do not know the manuscript’sauthors and the authors do not know the reviewers.
3. The reviewers are given one week to accept or decline the review invitation. If theydecline, they are invited to suggest two other reviewers.
4. Once a reviewer accepts the review invitation, he/she is given a period of three
weeks to submit a review. A link containing a password is given. The invitation
includes a link with Review guidelines:
http://hjradiology.org/index.php/HJR/pages/view/guidelines#Reviewers_Guidelines.
5. The reviewer is asked to state his/her opinion about the submission and the reasons
for reaching a conclusion via the journal’s platform in the field "Confidential
Comments to Editor". Detailed and specific comments for improvement of thepaper, if appropriate, are placed by the reviewer in the field "Blind Comments toAuthor". The report is finalised by addressing each question about the manuscript
and choosing a recommendation, according to the following choices: Accept,Decline, Revisions required. This procedure is repeated for both reviewers, who areblinded to each other’s identity.
6. Once both reviewers submit their comments and recommendations, these areforwarded to the authors, who are invited to submit the revised material, provided
that they can respond appropriately to the reviewers' comments. Revised material issubject again to review before a decision is finalised and acceptance for publication
is not guaranteed. The comments by the reviewers are included at the foot of themessage to the authors. The revised work is returned to the original reviewers. Theauthors are asked to specifically address all issues raised by the reviewers in a
detailed, point-by-point rebuttal, making it as easy as possible for the reviewers torecognise and understand the changes made in response to their comments. If theauthors disagree with specific points, they are invited to state their opinion, and thisis taken into consideration. Uploading of the revised material is performed via theonline submission system, as follows:
At the section "Review/Editor's Decision":- A blinded clean copy of the revised manuscript (without changes highlighted),
At the section "Summary/Supplementary Files":- An updated full title page,- A blinded annotated copy of the manuscript (identifying the changes that weremade and the corresponding reviewer comment),- All figures as individual TIFF files, 300 dpi resolution,- A detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments (Word document).
The revised manuscript must be returned within two weeks of the message if thereviewers have suggested minor corrections or four weeks in the event of majorcorrections.
7. If both reviewers have suggested rejection of the manuscript, this is rejected by theeditor and the authors are informed about the reviewers’ comments. If there isdisagreement between the two reviewers (rejection by one reviewer andacceptance or revisions required by the other), a third reviewer is invited. In anycase, the editor is responsible for the final decision.
8. For round 2 of the review (revised material), the same principles as in round 1 areapplied.
9. If the period of 2-4 weeks for submitting the revised material has elapsed, theauthors are notified by email in order to conclude the resubmission procedure assoon as possible. If again they do not submit the revised material promptly, themanuscript is rejected and the review process has to start from the beginning.
10. If both reviewers accept the manuscript, the authors are instantly notified about theacceptance. The reviewers are also notified about the completion of the review.