How to Write a Radiologic Paper


The purpose of this chapter is to provide a list of practical rules and recommendations for writing a scientific article, with particular reference to radiology. First, we will try to define the main types of articles published in the most important journals1, with particular reference to major papers (composed of the four classic sections Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion). Second, we will evaluate the radiologic journals with the recent trend of their impact factor (IF) — explaining its mechanism of calculation — compared with that of nonradiologic journals, a comparison useful for the choice of the suitable journal for submitting an article. Third, we will explain the absolute need of Ethics Committee approval and of informed consent by the patients asked to participate in a clinical study. Fourth, we will illustrate the content of each of the four sections of the major papers and the other associated sections, in particular the Abstract and the References. Moreover, we will provide several partial suggestions for tables, graphs, and figures, as well as some indications on how to interpret the Editor’s response and the comments and criticisms of the reviewers.


Liver Metastasis Impact Factor Institutional Review Board Approval Magn Reson Image Journal Citation Report 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bossuyt M, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. Radiology 226:24–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al for the CONSORT Group (2008) Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing non-pharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med 148:W60–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cavalli-Sforza L, Cavalli-Sforza F (2005) Perché la scienza. L’avventura di un ricercatore. Milan. MondadoriGoogle Scholar
  4. Dodd JD, MacEneaney PM, Malone DE (2004) Evidence-based radiology: how to quickly assess the validity and strength of publications in the diagnostic radiology literature. Eur Radiol 14:915–922PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gustavii B (2003) How to write and illustrate a scientific paper. New York. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Kerkut GA (1983) Choosing a title for a paper. Comp Biochem Physiol 74A:1. Quoted in: Gustavii B (2003) How to write and illustrate a scientific paper. New York. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kliewer MA, DeLong DM, Freed K et al (2004) Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1545–1550PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S et al (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354:1896–1900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357:1191–1194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rogers SM (2007) Mastering scientific and medical writing. Berlin. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’Agnolo G et al (2007) Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 242:698–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. World Medical Association (2004) Helsinki Declaration. Accessed February 19, 2008Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2009

Personalised recommendations