The Department of Radiation Oncology. In loving Memory of Penny Slattery ( ) Medical Physics Journal Manager ( )

Transcription

1 The Department of Radiation Oncology In loving Memory of Penny Slattery ( ) Medical Physics Journal Manager ( )

2 The Department of Radiation Oncology Medical Physics Workshop: Editorial Vision and Guidance on Writing and Reviewing Papers Jeffrey F. Williamson, Ph.D. Medical Physics, Editor-in-Chief Shiva K. Das, Ph.D. Medical Physics, Therapy Physics Editor Mitchell M. Goodsitt, Ph.D. Medical Physics, Imaging Physics Editor

3 Tribute to Penny Med Phys, April 2015

4 Outline Jeff Williamson: Editorial vision and status of new initiatives Shiva Das: Guidelines and templates for Referees and Associate Editors Mitch Goodsitt: Writing good scientific papers and responding to critiques

5 The Department of Radiation Oncology Editorial Vision for Medical Physics Update and current status of new initiatives Jeffrey F. Williamson, Ph.D. Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Physics, Editor-in-Chief

6 Outline Core values and mission Recent initiatives and changes to Med Phys operations Outcomes Ongoing initiatives

7 Medical Physics: Core Mission Enhance Medical Physics status as the preeminent forum for exchange of cutting edge medical physics science To identify and publish the best contributions in cutting edge basic science developments with potential for improving patient care clinical translation and validation of previously developed basic science innovations High impact clinical physics innovations that solve a significant clinical problem of broad interest Features of a publishable articles Novelty Generalizable scientific data or conclusion Relevant to significant subset of our readership

8 Vision and Mission Statement Bill Hendee (2005): to continue the Journal s tradition of publishing the very best science that propels our discipline forward and improves our contribution to patient care. The discipline is broad: application of physics concepts and methods to diagnosis and treatment of disease Medical imaging: pyscho-physics, system design, image reconstruction/restoration» X-rays, US, MR, RF, etc. for anatomic, biomechanical, electrical, molecular, and physiological properties Therapy: platform design, optimization, planning, dosimetry, outcome/biology models, imaging for response and guidance» RT, IG surgery, RF/US oblation and thermal therapy Basic research:» Segmentation, registration, feature extraction, voxel labeling» Image quality assessment and dosimetry» Physiology, biology, statistics

9 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%) Transitioning to in-house Board of Associate Editors Currently, 140 members including Editorial Board 74% of new submissions were managed by inhouse AEs

10 Review Process: 2-3 cycles 1. Ms. Received: Editor-in-Chief (EIC) Selects editor (ED) 2. ED preliminary review a. Rejects paper (15%) OR b. Recruits associate Editor (AE) 3. AE manages review a. Solicits reviews from at least 2 referees b. Makes recommendation to ED 4. Editorial Decision a. ED reviews Ref and AE reviews b. Makes decision and communicates to Author c. EIC signs off on ED decision

11 Ms. Processing and Author Interface Penny: the face of the journal for 20 years Author submissions, questions, reminders Very difficult late 2014, early 2015 Penny quite ill or undergoing treatments with sudden and rapid decline in late February Many innovations and QA systems on hold Hundreds of accumulated s and Ms. New model Interim Editorial Assistant: Ania Bukowski (AIPP)» Handles all Ms processing, author queries, review team support Interim Editorial Assistant: Viv Dennis (AAPM)» Editor, WG, editorial board support

12 Review improvements Current Initiatives In-house AE model Improve selectivity & stabilize Journal growth More thorough and uniform reviews Improve efficiency Improve reader experience Smaller more active Editorial Board (now 35) Advise editorial team, formulate policy, serve as AEs Implement initiatives via Working Groups» WG1: Review process efficiency, quality, selectivity» WG2: accessibility, readability, and interactivity» WG3: Data mining and evaluation of Journal quality» WG4: Outreach: Non-MP scientific/ clinical communities

13 We have increased selectivity/quality Use WG3 data to help us focus on what our audience reads and cites Discourage orphan papers that are rarely cited or read Acceptance rate Down to 45-50% from 55% We have reversed unsustainable Growth Increased focus on Best science Widely read guidance, review, and opinion

14 Review Times Median time to final decision: 88 days 1 st cycle review time: up to 42 days 25% > 60 days Median time to acceptance: 163 days from 138

15 Accomplishments Re-engineered many basic processes Improved QC Functioning process for expediting outliers Improved Correspondence and Appeals workflows New decision and invitation templates Capturing inbound s and consultation feature Major audit and evaluation of our editorial processes by Origin, Inc. All submitted papers screened by Ithenticate WG innovations WG1: review template and taxonomy WG2: Review editor position established WG3: DB established WG4: special CT and upcoming particle Tx issues

16 Dilemmas: Efficiency vs. Quality We work intensively with authors to Make poor articles with potential publishable Make acceptable articles into great articles Provide young scientists with apprenticeship in scientific writing We work hard to ensure only the high quality and innovative science gets accepted Downsides 160 days to acceptance including average of 60 days for R0 preparation Sr. scientists may view our approach as excessively critical

17 Innovations Plans for next year Complete Review Editor selection Create new section medical physics curated dataset article New EB Scientific Integrity Subcommittee (SISC)» Detailed SI/ethics standards and adjudication process Develop comprehensive marketing plan Implement Origin report recommendations BAE/GAE training Fewer chasers at smaller intervals Ask AEs to provide up front list of 4 Referees Improved & consistent Author Instructions Nurture more customer-centered culture

18 New Section: Medical Physics Dataset Articles Describe scientifically or clinically valuable openaccess datasets to help authors publish critically reviewed and documented high quality data sets to assist readers in discovering and using large-scale data sets developed by other investigators MPDAs describe the value; scope; conditions of acquisition; known limitations; and data set format No hypothesis testing or generalizable conclusions MPDA requires that the dataset be publically accessible in a recognized and stable data archive

19 New Section: Medical Physics Dataset Articles Examples large series of anonymized patient mammograms with positive or suggestive BIRADS readings and histopathologic diagnoses for CAD algorithm validation Virtual clinical trial datasets: Serial Tx-position CT datasets including validated physician organ segmentations, identified registration landmarks, and nonrigid planning-to-tx registrations Main barrier Lack of accessible dataset repositories for large scale data To date, scientific societies, e.g., AAPM, have stepped forward

20 Conclusion Medical physics research is rapidly changing More multidisciplinary More focus on imaging even in therapy New submission rapidly increasing especially from from Europe and Asia Med Phys needs to adapt, too Faster, more interactive Better understand and serve readership/authorship needs Appreciate our broad international and multidisciplinary audience Improve Med Phys impact and quality while nurturing positive aspects of its culture