Diagnostic radiology and its future:what do clinicians need and think?

Objective: To investigate the view of clinicians on diagnostic radiology and its future. Methods: Corresponding authors who published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet between 2010 and 2022 were asked to participate in a survey about diagnostic radiology and its future. Results: The 331 participating clinicians gave a median score of 9 on a 0–10 point scale to the value of medical imaging in improving patient-relevant outcomes. 40.6%, 15.1%, 18.9%, and 9.5% of clinicians indicated to interpret more than half of radiography, ultrasonography, CT, and MRI examinations completely by themselves, without consulting a radiologist or reading the radiology report. Two hundred eighty-nine clinicians (87.3%) expected an increase in medical imaging utilization in the coming 10 years, whereas 9 clinicians (2.7%) expected a decrease. The need for diagnostic radiologists in the coming 10 years was expected to increase by 162 clinicians (48.9%), to remain stable by 85 clinicians (25.7%), and to decrease by 47 clinicians (14.2%). Two hundred clinicians (60.4%) expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will not make diagnostic radiologists redundant in the coming 10 years, whereas 54 clinicians (16.3%) thought the opposite. Conclusion: Clinicians who published in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet attribute high value to medical imaging. They generally need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation, but for a considerable proportion of radiographs, their service is not required. Most expect medical imaging utilization and the need for diagnostic radiologists to increase in the foreseeable future, and do not expect AI to make radiologists redundant. Clinical relevance statement: The views of clinicians on radiology and its future may be used to determine how radiology should be practiced and be further developed. Key Points: • Clinicians generally regard medical imaging as high-value care and expect to use more medical imaging in the future. • Clinicians mainly need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation while they interpret a substantial proportion of radiographs completely by themselves. • The majority of clinicians expects that the need for diagnostic radiologists will not decrease (half of them even expect that we need more) and does not believe that AI will replace radiologists.</p

Scientific Fraud, Publication Bias, and Honorary Authorship in Nuclear Medicine

Our objective was to investigate nuclear medicine scientists’ experience with scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship. Methods: Corresponding authors who published an article in one of the 15 general nuclear medicine journals (according to Journal Citation Reports) in 2021 received an invitation to participate in a survey on scientific integrity. Results: In total, 254 (12.4%) of 1,897 corresponding authors completed the survey, of whom 11 (4.3%) admitted to having committed scientific fraud and 54 (21.3%) reported having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by someone in their department in the past 5 y. Publication bias was considered present by 222 (87.4%) respondents, and honorary authorship practices were experienced by 100 (39.4%) respondents. Respondents assigned a median score of 8 (range, 2–10) on a 1- to 10-point scale for their overall confidence in the integrity of published work. On multivariate analysis, researchers in Asia had significantly more confidence in the integrity of published work, with a b-coefficient of 0.983 (95% CI, 0.512–1.454; P &lt; 0.001). A subset of 22 respondents raised additional concerns, mainly about authorship criteria and assignments, the generally poor quality of published studies, and perverse incentives of journals and publishers. Conclusion: Scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship appear to be nonnegligible practices in nuclear medicine. Overall confidence in the integrity of published work is high, particularly among researchers in Asia.</p

Integrity in cardiovascular imaging research

Objective: To gain more insight in scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging research by conducting a survey among all corresponding authors who published in cardiovascular imaging journals. Methods: Corresponding authors who published in one of eight major cardiovascular imaging journals in 2021 were requested to complete a questionnaire about scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging. Results: Responses from 160 corresponding authors were received. The majority of respondents had a medical doctor degree (81.1%), held an academic position (93.8%, of which 44.0% as full professor), and had &gt;10 years of research experience (72.5%). Overall confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in cardiovascular imaging was high, with a median score of 8 out of 10 (IQR 2). 5 respondents (3.1%) declared having committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years and 38 respondents (23.8%) declared having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. 85.6% of respondents think that publication bias is present. 50% of respondents declared that any of their publications in the past 5 years had a co-author who actually did not deserve this co-authorship. Conclusion: Experts in the field report that several forms of scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in cardiovascular imaging research. Despite these reports of academic dishonesty, overall confidence in the integrity of cardiovascular imaging research is deemed high.</p

Diagnostic radiology and its future:what do clinicians need and think?

Objective: To investigate the view of clinicians on diagnostic radiology and its future. Methods: Corresponding authors who published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet between 2010 and 2022 were asked to participate in a survey about diagnostic radiology and its future. Results: The 331 participating clinicians gave a median score of 9 on a 0–10 point scale to the value of medical imaging in improving patient-relevant outcomes. 40.6%, 15.1%, 18.9%, and 9.5% of clinicians indicated to interpret more than half of radiography, ultrasonography, CT, and MRI examinations completely by themselves, without consulting a radiologist or reading the radiology report. Two hundred eighty-nine clinicians (87.3%) expected an increase in medical imaging utilization in the coming 10 years, whereas 9 clinicians (2.7%) expected a decrease. The need for diagnostic radiologists in the coming 10 years was expected to increase by 162 clinicians (48.9%), to remain stable by 85 clinicians (25.7%), and to decrease by 47 clinicians (14.2%). Two hundred clinicians (60.4%) expected that artificial intelligence (AI) will not make diagnostic radiologists redundant in the coming 10 years, whereas 54 clinicians (16.3%) thought the opposite. Conclusion: Clinicians who published in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet attribute high value to medical imaging. They generally need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation, but for a considerable proportion of radiographs, their service is not required. Most expect medical imaging utilization and the need for diagnostic radiologists to increase in the foreseeable future, and do not expect AI to make radiologists redundant. Clinical relevance statement: The views of clinicians on radiology and its future may be used to determine how radiology should be practiced and be further developed. Key Points: • Clinicians generally regard medical imaging as high-value care and expect to use more medical imaging in the future. • Clinicians mainly need radiologists for cross-sectional imaging interpretation while they interpret a substantial proportion of radiographs completely by themselves. • The majority of clinicians expects that the need for diagnostic radiologists will not decrease (half of them even expect that we need more) and does not believe that AI will replace radiologists.</p

The peer review process:A survey among scientists in radiology

Purpose: To map the experience and view of scientists in radiology on the peer review process.Method: A survey with 12 closed-ended questions and 5 conditional sub-questions was conducted among corresponding authors who published in general radiology journals.Results: 244 corresponding authors participated. In considering a peer review invitation, most respondents found the topic and the availability of time very important (62.1% [144/132] and 57.8% [134/232], respectively), the quality of the abstract, the prestige/impact factor of the journal, and the sense of professional duty important (43.7% [101/231], 42.2% [98/232], and 53.9% [125/232], respectively), and were indifferent about a reward (35.3% [82/232]). However, 61.1% (143/234) believed that a reviewer should be rewarded. Direct financial compensation (27.6% [42/152]), discounted fees for society memberships, conventions, and/or journal subscriptions (24.3% [37/152]), and Continuing Medical Education credits (23.0% [35/152]) were the most frequently desired rewards. 73.4% (179/244) of respondents never received formal peer review training, of whom 31.2% (54/173) would like to, particularly less experienced researchers (Chi-Square P = 0.001). The median reported review time per article was 2.5 h. 75.2% (176/234) of respondents found it acceptable that a manuscript is rejected by an editor without formal peer review. The double-blinded peer review model was preferred by most respondents (42.3% [99/234]). A median of 6 weeks was considered the maximum acceptable time from manuscript submission to initial decision by a journal.Conclusion: Publishers and journal editors may use the experiences and views of authors that were provided in this survey to shape the peer review process.</p

The peer review process:A survey among scientists in radiology

Purpose: To map the experience and view of scientists in radiology on the peer review process.Method: A survey with 12 closed-ended questions and 5 conditional sub-questions was conducted among corresponding authors who published in general radiology journals.Results: 244 corresponding authors participated. In considering a peer review invitation, most respondents found the topic and the availability of time very important (62.1% [144/132] and 57.8% [134/232], respectively), the quality of the abstract, the prestige/impact factor of the journal, and the sense of professional duty important (43.7% [101/231], 42.2% [98/232], and 53.9% [125/232], respectively), and were indifferent about a reward (35.3% [82/232]). However, 61.1% (143/234) believed that a reviewer should be rewarded. Direct financial compensation (27.6% [42/152]), discounted fees for society memberships, conventions, and/or journal subscriptions (24.3% [37/152]), and Continuing Medical Education credits (23.0% [35/152]) were the most frequently desired rewards. 73.4% (179/244) of respondents never received formal peer review training, of whom 31.2% (54/173) would like to, particularly less experienced researchers (Chi-Square P = 0.001). The median reported review time per article was 2.5 h. 75.2% (176/234) of respondents found it acceptable that a manuscript is rejected by an editor without formal peer review. The double-blinded peer review model was preferred by most respondents (42.3% [99/234]). A median of 6 weeks was considered the maximum acceptable time from manuscript submission to initial decision by a journal.Conclusion: Publishers and journal editors may use the experiences and views of authors that were provided in this survey to shape the peer review process.</p

Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research

Purpose: To investigate the view of radiologists on the integrity of their own and their colleagues’ scientific work.Materials and methods: Corresponding authors of articles that were published in 12 general radiology journals in 2021 were invited to participate in a survey on scientific integrity.Results: A total of 219 (6.2 %) of 3,511 invited corresponding authors participated. Thirteen (5.9 %) respondents reported having committed scientific fraud, and 60 (27.4 %) witnessed or suspect scientific fraud among their departmental members in the past 5 years. Misleading reporting (32.2 %), duplicate/redundant publication (26.3 %), plagiarism (15.3 %), and data manipulation/falsification (13.6 %) were the most commonly reported types of scientific fraud. Publication bias exists according to 184 (84.5 %) respondents, and 89 (40.6 %) respondents had honorary authors on their publications in the past 5 years. General confidence in the integrity of scientific publications ranged between 2 and 10 (median: 8) on a 0–10 point scale. Common topics of interest and concern among respondents were authorship criteria and assignments, perverse incentives (including the influence of money, funding, and academic promotions on the practice of research), and poorly performed research without intentional fraud.Conclusion: Radiology researchers reported that scientific fraud and other undesirable practices such as publication bias and honorary authorship are relatively common. Their general confidence in the scientific integrity of published work was relatively high, but far from perfect. These data may trigger stakeholders in the radiology community to place scientific integrity higher on the agenda, and to initiate cultural and policy reforms to remove perverse research incentives.</p

The peer review process:A survey among scientists in radiology

Purpose: To map the experience and view of scientists in radiology on the peer review process.Method: A survey with 12 closed-ended questions and 5 conditional sub-questions was conducted among corresponding authors who published in general radiology journals.Results: 244 corresponding authors participated. In considering a peer review invitation, most respondents found the topic and the availability of time very important (62.1% [144/132] and 57.8% [134/232], respectively), the quality of the abstract, the prestige/impact factor of the journal, and the sense of professional duty important (43.7% [101/231], 42.2% [98/232], and 53.9% [125/232], respectively), and were indifferent about a reward (35.3% [82/232]). However, 61.1% (143/234) believed that a reviewer should be rewarded. Direct financial compensation (27.6% [42/152]), discounted fees for society memberships, conventions, and/or journal subscriptions (24.3% [37/152]), and Continuing Medical Education credits (23.0% [35/152]) were the most frequently desired rewards. 73.4% (179/244) of respondents never received formal peer review training, of whom 31.2% (54/173) would like to, particularly less experienced researchers (Chi-Square P = 0.001). The median reported review time per article was 2.5 h. 75.2% (176/234) of respondents found it acceptable that a manuscript is rejected by an editor without formal peer review. The double-blinded peer review model was preferred by most respondents (42.3% [99/234]). A median of 6 weeks was considered the maximum acceptable time from manuscript submission to initial decision by a journal.Conclusion: Publishers and journal editors may use the experiences and views of authors that were provided in this survey to shape the peer review process.</p

Scientific integrity and fraud in radiology research

Purpose: To investigate the view of radiologists on the integrity of their own and their colleagues’ scientific work. Materials and methods: Corresponding authors of articles that were published in 12 general radiology journals in 2021 were invited to participate in a survey on scientific integrity. Results: A total of 219 (6.2 %) of 3,511 invited corresponding authors participated. Thirteen (5.9 %) respondents reported having committed scientific fraud, and 60 (27.4 %) witnessed or suspect scientific fraud among their departmental members in the past 5 years. Misleading reporting (32.2 %), duplicate/redundant publication (26.3 %), plagiarism (15.3 %), and data manipulation/falsification (13.6 %) were the most commonly reported types of scientific fraud. Publication bias exists according to 184 (84.5 %) respondents, and 89 (40.6 %) respondents had honorary authors on their publications in the past 5 years. General confidence in the integrity of scientific publications ranged between 2 and 10 (median: 8) on a 0–10 point scale. Common topics of interest and concern among respondents were authorship criteria and assignments, perverse incentives (including the influence of money, funding, and academic promotions on the practice of research), and poorly performed research without intentional fraud. Conclusion: Radiology researchers reported that scientific fraud and other undesirable practices such as publication bias and honorary authorship are relatively common. Their general confidence in the scientific integrity of published work was relatively high, but far from perfect. These data may trigger stakeholders in the radiology community to place scientific integrity higher on the agenda, and to initiate cultural and policy reforms to remove perverse research incentives