Peer-review policy

Radiopaedia applies a peer review process to all CPD/CME-eligible lectures, courses and content. This process is overseen by the Radiopaedia Educational Board. Although the specifics of the process depend on the type of content, in all cases we seek to ensure that the following is true for all learning activities:

1. recommendations for patient care are based on current science, evidence, and clinical reasoning while giving a fair and balanced view of diagnostic and therapeutic options
2. all scientific research referred to, reported, or used in this educational activity in support or justification of a patient care recommendation conforms to the generally accepted standards of experimental design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation
3. new and evolving topics for which there is a lower (or absent) evidence base are clearly identified as such within the educational activity, and such practices are not promoted beyond what is warranted by current science, evidence, and clinical reasoning
4. the activity excludes any advocacy for, or promotion of, unscientific approaches to diagnosis or therapy, or recommendations, treatment, or manners of practising healthcare that is determined to have risks or dangers that outweigh the benefits or are known to be ineffective in the treatment of patients
5. the activity does not promote specific commercial products or organizations
6. ensure authors and planners disclose all relationships with ineligible companies (see disclosures) and that any relationships relevant to the content/learning activity are disclosed to learners prior to engaging with the learning activity
7. and that if relationships are present that are relevant to the content/learning activity or that appropriate mitigation is put in place.

Courses, lectures and learning pathways

All courses, lectures and learning pathways that are planned to be eligible for CPD/CME points undergo a process that begins before the content is even created and is completed prior to its online publication, and a minimum of two members of the Radiopaedia Educational Board must sign off on each activity. 

The review aims to substantiate that authors are sufficiently qualified and presenting accurate information adequately reflecting the current state of scientifically justified practice guidelines and that no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies exist that could bias the content. 

Cases, articles and multiple-choice questions

Each and every edit or contribution to Radiopaedia's extensive collection of cases, articles and multiple-choice questions undergoes peer review by members of our editorial board. If any concerns are identified relating to the content itself or relevant financial disclosures with ineligible companies, these are escalated to the Radiopaedia Educational Board.

Review of enduring material

All material accredited for AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ is periodically reviewed at least once every three years, or more frequently if indicated by new scientific developments, in line with ACCME guidelines to ensure it remains valid. This is performed either by the author of the learning activity or by an alternate reviewer with suitable subject matter expertise appointed by the Radiopaedia Educational Board. The result of this review, including recommendations and required changes is internally documented. 

Each accredited activity will list the Publication date and Expiry date as well as the date(s) of any prior reviews. 

Our aim is to provide the highest possible learning experience based on science and transparency. 

If you have any questions or comments please contact [email protected].