Editors Guidelines
Editors maintain scientific quality and patient safety at JRNM. These guidelines outline expectations for decision making, reviewer selection, and communication with authors.
Editor Responsibilities
Supporting fair and rigorous decisions
Editors assess submissions for scope fit, originality, and methodological rigor before inviting peer review. They balance reviewer recommendations with their own assessment to reach fair, well supported decisions.
Decision Criteria
Quality
Methods and analysis are robust
Scope
Aligned with nuclear medicine aims
Ethics
Approvals and safety documented
Data
Availability and transparency
Best Practices
Timelines: Secure reviewer reports promptly and communicate delays to the editorial office.
Conflicts: Disclose conflicts and recuse from manuscripts where impartiality is compromised.
Decision Letters: Provide clear rationale and separate major from minor revisions.
Documentation: Record key decisions and rationale for transparency.
Interested in joining the editorial team?
Register to serve as an editor and help guide scientific excellence.
Decision Outcomes
Apply consistent judgments
- Accept: Manuscript meets standards with no substantive changes.
- Minor Revision: Limited updates for clarity or completeness.
- Major Revision: Substantial changes or additional analysis required.
- Reject: Manuscript does not meet scope or quality standards.
Reviewer Management
Align expertise with scope
Select reviewers with appropriate expertise in nuclear medicine, physics, or radiopharmaceutical science. Encourage structured feedback and manage conflicts of interest carefully.
Decision Letters
Communicate with clarity
Decision letters should summarize key issues, highlight required revisions, and avoid ambiguous language. Clear guidance helps authors respond efficiently.
Reviewer Diversity
Broaden perspectives
Seek reviewers across clinical, physics, and radiopharmaceutical expertise to reduce bias and improve evaluation quality.
Ethics Oversight
Address integrity concerns
Flag potential ethics issues such as incomplete consent, data anomalies, or safety concerns and coordinate with the editorial office for resolution.
Consistency
Fair decisions
Apply criteria consistently across submissions to maintain fairness. Document key decision points for transparency and audit readiness.
Decision Consistency
Maintain standards
Apply review criteria consistently across imaging and therapy submissions to ensure fairness and trust.
Documentation
Record decisions
Document key decision points and reviewer feedback summaries for transparency and future reference.
Reviewer Diversity
Balanced perspectives
Select reviewers across clinical, physics, and radiochemistry expertise to strengthen evaluation quality.
Quality Reminder
Stay aligned
Reinforce expectations for data transparency and safety reporting in decision letters.
Quality Cue
Emphasize rigor
Highlight data integrity and safety reporting in evaluations.
