Gender diversity among editorial boards of radiology-related journals

Purpose: To investigate gender diversity in editorial boards among a wide range of radiology-related journals, the trend in time, and its association with the journal's impact factor (IF). Method: The Journal Citation Reports website was searched for radiology-related journals journals with IF>2.0. Gender of the editor-in-chief and all editorial board members as listed on each journal's official website were determined. Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's rho test were used for statistical analyses. Current data were compared to historical data. Results: Fifty-seven radiology-related journals were included. The names of 4176 persons were extracted. A woman was in charge as the only editor-in-chief in 5 of 57 journals (8.8%). Median percentage of female editorial board members was 21.5% (range 3.2%-52.0%). Female editorial board members were in the majority in only two journals, with proportions of 51.4% and 52.0%. IFs between journals with female and male editors-in-chief were not significantly different (median 3.00, range 2.21-7.82 vs. median 3.31, range 2.02-10.98; P = 0.951). There was no significant association between percentage of female editorial board members and a journal's IF (Spearman's rho = -0.019, P = 0.889). The proportion of women has increased compared to historical data. Conclusion: Women are underrepresented in a wide range of radiology-related journals. Comparison with historical data shows that the proportion of women on editorial boards has increased. Nevertheless, gender composition of the editorial board shows no association with IF. This suggests similar gender bias exists across a broad spectrum of high impact factor journals, with no added bias in journals with higher IF

Citation advantage for open access articles in European Radiology

Objective: To investigate whether there is a difference in citation rate between open access and subscription access articles in the field of radiology. Methods: This study included consecutive original articles published online in European Radiology. Pearson χ2, Fisher’s exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess for any differences between open access and subscription access articles. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between open access publishing and citation rate, adjusted for continent of origin, subspeciality, study findings in article title, number of authors, number of references, length of the article, and number of days the article has been online. In a secondary analysis, we determined the association between open access and number of downloads and shares. Results: A total of 500 original studies, of which 86 (17.2%) were open access and 414 (82.8%) were subscription access articles, were included. Articles from Europe or North America were significantly more frequently published open access (p = 0.024 and p = 0.001), while articles with corresponding authors from Asia were significantly less frequently published open access (p < 0.001). In adjusted linear regression analysis, open access articles were significantly more frequently cited (beta coefficient = 3.588, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.668 to 6.508, p = 0.016), downloaded (beta coefficient = 759.801, 95% CI 630.917 to 888.685, p < 0.001), and shared (beta coefficient = 0.748, 95% CI 0.124 to 1.372, p = 0.019) than subscription access articles (beta coefficient = 3.94, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 6.44, p = 0.002). Conclusion: Open access publishing is independently associated with an increased citation, download, and share rate in the field of radiology. Key Points: • A minority of articles are currently published open access in European Radiology. • European and North American authors tend to publish more open access articles than Asian authors. • Open access publishing seems to offer an independent advantage in terms of citation, download, and share rate

Funding of Radiology Research:Frequency and Association With Citation Rate

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to investigate the frequency of funded research published in major radiology journals and to determine whether funding is associated with the article citation rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 600 consecutive original research articles published in three journals-AJR, Radiology, and European Radiology-were included. Linear regression analysis was performed to determine the association between research funding and the article citation rate, as adjusted for journal, continent of origin of the first author, subspecialty, study findings included in the article title, number of authors, immediate open access publication, and time since publication online. RESULTS. Funding was declared for 286 of 600 included articles (47.7%). Sources of funding were as follows: federal sponsorship (29.4%), a nonprofit foundation (16.4%), both federal sponsorship and a nonprofit foundation (16.1%), private industry (10.1%), intramural institutional research funding (9.8%), and other funding sources (18.2%). Articles with first authors whose continent of origin was Europe (p <0.001), vascular and interventional radiology articles (p <0.001), and articles published in AJR (p <0.001) were significantly more frequently unfunded than funded. Articles published in Radiology were significantly more frequently funded (p <0.001). The citation rate was not significantly different between funded and unfunded articles (p = 0.166). In adjusted linear regression analysis, funding was not significantly associated with the citation rate (beta coefficient,- 0.31; 95% CI,-3.27 to 2.66; p = 0.838). CONCLUSION. Almost half of the research articles published in major radiology journals declared funding, a proportion that has increased compared with findings from previous studies (17% of articles in a study from 1994 and 26.9% of articles in a study of literature published between 2001 and 2010). Most funded articles received support from federal sponsors or nonprofit foundations, whereas only a minority of funded articles were supported by private industry. Funding was not associated with a higher citation rate

Funding of nuclear medicine research and association with citation impact

Purpose There has been no recent investigation on nuclear medicine research funding. Our purpose was to investigate the frequency of funded nuclear medicine research and whether funding is associated with citation impact. Methods Original articles published in three major nuclear medicine journals were assessed for funding. Results 337 (56.2%) of 600 articles declared funding, which included federal sponsoring (47.6%), non-profit foundations (22.5%), intramural institutional foundations (16.0%), and private industry (13.9%). In linear regression analysis (adjusted for journal, continent of origin, mentioning of study findings in the article title, number of authors, open access publishing, and time since online publication), funding was significantly associated with citation impact (beta coefficient = 5.111, 95% CI, 1.005-9.217, P = 0.015). Conclusions More than half of research in major nuclear medicine journals declared funding. The far majority were supported federally, followed by non-profit foundations, intramural institutional foundations, and private industry. Funding was associated with higher citation impact

Lactate dehydrogenase levels and F-18-FDG PET/CT metrics differentiate between mediastinal Hodgkin's lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma

PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate whether clinical, laboratory, and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/CT findings can discriminate between mediastinal Hodgkin's lymphoma and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 56 patients (42 with mediastinal Hodgkin's lymphoma and 14 with PBMCL). Differences in clinical, laboratory, and F-FDG PET/CT metrics were assessed between Hodgkin's lymphoma and PMBCL. RESULTS: Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and F-FDG PET/CT-based maximum tumor diameter, lesion-to-liver ratio maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), and lesion-to-liver ratio peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak) were all significantly higher (P<0.001) in PMBCL than in Hodgkin's lymphoma, and PMBCL also significantly more frequently (P=0.001) exhibited necrosis on F-FDG PET/CT than Hodgkin's lymphoma. LDH, maximum tumor diameter, lesion-to-liver ratio SUVmax, and lesion-to-liver ratio SUVpeak yielded areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.968 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.923-1.000], 0.866 (95% CI: 0.765-0.968), 0.875 (95% CI: 0.776-0.975), and 0.874 (95% CI: 0.771-0.976), respectively. LDH (with cutoff of 236 U/l) achieved sensitivity and specificity of 81.6 and 100%, respectively; maximum tumor diameter (with cutoff of 9.98 cm) achieved sensitivity and specificity of 87.2 and 78.3%, respectively; lesion-to-liver ratio SUVmax (with cutoff of 7.12) achieved sensitivity and specificity of 94.9 and 64.3%, respectively; lesion-to-liver ratio SUVpeak (with cutoff of 11.45) achieved sensitivity and specificity of 97.4 and 64.3%, respectively; and the presence of necrosis achieved sensitivity and specificity of 78.6 and 74.4%, respectively, in discriminating PMBCL from Hodgkin's lymphoma. CONCLUSION: LDH levels and several F-FDG PET/CT findings (tumor size, presence of necrosis, and degree of F-FDG uptake) are helpful in discriminating mediastinal Hodgkin's lymphoma from PMBCL