Radiopaedia's content review process for cases and articles is open and transparent 1. Contributors' and reviewers' names and disclosures are available, and all changes to content are stored in perpetuity as a publically accessible revision history.
Interaction between contributors and reviewers and among reviewers is encouraged. We aim to help contributors improve their cases to the required standard for publication and ensure that contributions to articles are constructive. The content review process can occur either pre- or post-publication (depending on the contributor's experience).
For articles and public cases, the review process has two components to meet Radiopedia's educational and professional standards:
Style review
Peer review
On this page:
Style review
All Radiopaedia editors, including copy editors, can complete the style review:
reviewing for potential patient confidentiality and copyright and/or plagiarism issues
adherence to Radiopaedia’s Case Publishing Guidelines and Style Guide
reviewing text for spelling, clarity, etc.
Style reviews may be performed in conjunction with moderation.
Peer review
There are two types of peer review:
Continued medical education (CME) peer review
Moderation
Both CME peer review and moderation have shared elements, although completed CME reviews also undergo moderation. Key features of both types of peer review include:
ensuring content is evidenced-based, scientifically correct, and considered mainstream
ensuring contributing follow the Style Guide
ensuring contributions are appropriately referenced
content is free from commercial bias
Specifically, for case reviews:
ensuring the diagnosis is appropriate, accurately described, and the diagnostic certainty is set appropriately
reviewing the images to ensure that the above can be performed with confidence
NB, unlisted cases undergo a truncated review process to assess patient confidentiality and potential copyright issues, as they are not publicly visible
Specifically, for article reviews:
reviewing newly created articles in the context of existing articles to ensure the topic warrants a standalone article
Specifically, for question reviews:
questions are appropriately written, and the answer and explanations are correct
CME peer review
NB, CME peer review for articles is under development (c. October 2024).
Content on the site deemed eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 credit(s)™ undergoes a peer review process by selected domain-specific experts with subject matter experience to ensure a thorough and informed assessment. Reviewers undergo Radiopaedia-specific training in reviewing educational content. CME peer reviews are recorded and content is not accredited until it passes. All CME content is under the oversight of the Radiopaedia Educational Board.
Moderation
Moderation is the name given to the peer review process that encompasses all contributions, including CME peer reviews. All Radiopaedia editors, except copy editors, can perform this type of peer review. Sometimes, multiple editors will be involved in a case or article review. Editors must not moderate their own contributions.
See also
For more details, please see the peer review policy.