Existing article review process

Last revised by Henry Knipe on 14 Feb 2024

Periodically all articles on Radiopaedia.org will be reviewed by our editorial board, either on an ad hoc basis or as part of an editorial project. Such a review should be systematic and aimed at not only ensuring that the article in its current state is of sufficient standard but also to improve it and to ensure that it fits well within the local topic cluster. 

As such a number of steps should occur during a review of an existing article.

Article structure

Having a consistent structure to all articles on Radiopaedia.org is crucial, and it is hard to over-emphasize just how pedantic we should be about this. If every article differs slightly from others, even if this is almost subconscious, the site will not feel like a cohesive whole. 

Thus, when reviewing existing articles, please ensure that: 

  • the article structure (headings and subheadings) conforms to our style guide; please note that we have a number of standard styles for different types of articles

  • the prose is of adequate quality; often merely improving the way something is expressed substantially improves the comprehension

  • bulleted and numbered lists are used appropriately - this is hard to be dogmatic about, but generally, except for lists, most content should be in paragraph long prose

  • bold and italics are used appropriately

  • capitalization, abbreviations, hyphenation, numbers and citations are all according to our extensive style guide

Read more about our style guide

A critical part of Radiopaedia.org is the ability to navigate easily from article to article, from article to cases and from cases to articles. As such appropriate links are essential. 

Reviewing an existing article is not just about ensuring that outbound links are appropriate, but also that inbound links exist in related articles. 

  • outbound links are those going from the scope articles/cases to other parts of the site

  • inbound links are those linking to the scope articles from other parts of the site

Read more about links

Over the years, as more and more cases have been added, the cases attached to the right-hand column of articles are unlikely to be the best and most complete cases available, or certainly are unlikely to be in the best order. The right-hand column is not about adding every single example of that pathology on the site. 

It is hard to have definitive rules for how to organize these, but, in general, the first case should be an excellent quality typical example of the relevant pathology. 

Please ensure that the number of cases included (roughly) matches the length of the article; you don't want a two paragraph article having 40 cases in the right-hand column. 

Read more about adding cases to articles.

Reference review is a major part of an article review, as generally references have been gradually added over the course of many years. These are not always referenced in the body of the article, and sometimes they are from inappropriate sources (see references for further details). 

Thus, when reviewing existing articles, please check that all references are: 

  1. referenced in the body of the article

  2. from appropriate sources

  3. in correct format 

It is also the right time to review leading general radiology journals (e.g. RadioGraphics, Radiology, European Radiology) as well as subspecialty journals for recent relevant publications (e.g. last 2-5 years).

ADVERTISEMENT: Supporters see fewer/no ads

Updating… Please wait.

 Unable to process the form. Check for errors and try again.

 Thank you for updating your details.