Time commitment per case: 30 minutes to 1 hour
This opportunity is ongoing. Peer reviewers can expect to be invited to review a case every 6 to 8 weeks.
About the RSNA Case Collection
This online, educational and point-of-care tool assists the global radiology community with diagnosis across all areas of the specialty. RSNA Case Collection is the first of its kind to be designed exclusively for use within the radiology environment. The library of cases is peer-reviewed and RSNA-vetted to provide a curated and trusted resource that aids in diagnosis. Accepted cases will be assigned a DOI, making the case citable for research. The easy-to-use online platform organizes cases by subspecialty to enable confident diagnoses.
Details of Peer Reviewer Role
- Peer reviewer is invited to review a case via email and is given three (3) days to accept/decline to review.
- After accepting, the reviewer will have 5 business days to review the case.
- After reviewing, the reviewer recommends: Accept, Accept with revisions, or Reject
- The review should be concise while still addressing all the components of the case submission.
The peer reviewer will address the following items on the case:
1. Case title appropriateness and length
2. Figure legends are written according to author guidelines and contain reference to figure annotations. Figure parts for each image set should clarify the figure parts in the legend especially if the set includes more than one sequence e.g Axial T2WI (first and second image) and DWI/ADC (third and fourth image) etc. Similarly, each annotation should clearly pertain to the figure part i.e arrow in first image, etc.
3. Figure annotations. Preferably, authors should use uniform annotations throughout the submission and avoid colors green and red for their annotations
4. Quiz title appropriateness and length (should be a real statement and cannot contain the diagnosis)
5. Any missing information from clinical history and presentation
6. Appropriate DDX and rationale. Each item in the DDX should be discussed and ruled out as invalid diagnosis with the final diagnosis being the most appropriate
7. Appropriate length and content of the clinical presentation and general epidemiology
8. Appropriate length and content of prognosis, treatment, and therapeutic options. The discussion segment should contain appropriate length of scientific content and contain proper and complete material.
9. Are the references appropriate (number of references) and is the date of the references appropriate (is information current?). Are the references cited in the case?
Reviewers names are not revealed to authors.