Reviewer Guidelines


Reviewers Guidelines

Thank you for considering reviewing a manuscript submitted to the Hellenic Journal of Radiology. Your time and effort are much appreciated. Before you accept to review the manuscript, please think about the following matters:

Should you accept:

  • “Do I have the time to perform the review?” A manuscript is expected to have been reviewed with a decision reached by the reviewer in a time period of three weeks. Please make sure that you are able to meet this requirement. In any case, please respond to the invitation to review a manuscript within a week.
  • “Is the article in question relevant to my area of expertise?” It is better to decline if you feel that you are not adequately familiar with the scientific field of the manuscript.
  • “Do I have any conflict of interest?” Please let the editors know of any ethical or financial reason that prohibits you of reviewing a certain manuscript.
  • If you decline to review the manuscript, you are kindly asked to suggest one or two alternative reviewers with contact details.

Treatment of submitted material

The submitted manuscript is a confidential document and should be treated accordingly. Information contained in the manuscript, as well as information about the review, cannot be shared with anyone without permission from authors and the journal’s editors.

Report concerning the review

The report should be written in a courteous, constructive and polite way, in order to assist the editor in deciding on the publication of the manuscript. Your opinion should be supported by detailed comments in order for the authors and editors to comprehend the interpretation of your decision. Explaining of possible weak points of the article is especially important in order for the authors to improve it up to acceptance point or, even if the article is rejected, to improve it for further submission to other journals. No personal opinions regarding your name or professional position should be included in the report.

Key points of your review

  • If you have reasons to suspect fraud, plagiarism, redundant or multiple publications or other ethical matters, communicate your concerns with the editor, providing detailed information.
  • The invitation to review should state what type of article you are asked to review (original article, review article, pictorial essay, etc). Please ensure that your observations are suitable for the respective type. Give a detailed opinion on the manuscript, including remarks on novelty, interest, uniqueness, scientific impact and progress in medical knowledge.
  • Give a short summary of the article’s content, in order to show that you have understood its message.
  • Detailed observations should include point-by-point comments on:
    • Title: Is it understandable and representative of the paper’s content?
    • Abstract: Does it describe an adequate short version of the manuscript?
    • Main text:

-  Is the material adequately novel and interesting?

-  Do any ethical concerns exist regarding the paper? Should an institutional ethical approval statement or patient consent be included? Is patient anonymity guaranteed?

 - In case of original papers, are the methods described clear enough? Is the background part sufficiently outlined? Are additional experiments required? Have the authors mentioned potential limitations of the study? Is the discussion part relevant, informative and adequate?

- Are conclusions in agreement with the method’s results or evidence given?

- Is a review of statistical analysis needed?

- Is language editing needed?

  • Figures and Tables: Are they clear enough and of acceptable quality? Are they appropriate in content and number?
  • References: Is the number of references representative, outdated, too small or too large? Are references mentioned according to the journal’s guidelines to authors? If you believe additional references are needed, these should represent valid scientific reasons, without any personal preference.


Your suggestion

Your suggestion concerning whether the article should be published or not should follow one of the four following categories:

  • Acceptance without revision needed.
  • Minor revision needed.
  • Major revision needed. Indicate specific points were revision is needed. Explain the corrections that are required and specify to the editor if you need to review again the revised manuscript.
  • Rejection: Detailed reasons for rejection should be included in your report.

How to submit your review

This task is performed through the journal’s website, The email with which you are invited to review an article contains a link guiding you through the entire procedure. You will be given the option to submit your review (confidential comments to the editor and comments to the authors) either by entering the text in the relevant spaces or by uploading this material in Word files. In any case, we kindly ask you not to add your comments on the side of the original blinded manuscript uploaded by the authors, as this may interfere with the double blinded character of the review.

Thank you again for your time and efforts in reviewing an article for the Hellenic Journal of Radiology.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.