Role of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality, relevance, and integrity of Imagen Diagnóstica. Reviewers are asked to provide fair, constructive, timely, and evidence-based evaluations of submitted manuscripts. The goal of peer review is not only to support editorial decision-making, but also to help authors improve the clarity, rigor, and clinical or technical value of their work.

Scope of the Journal

Imagen Diagnóstica welcomes manuscripts related to diagnostic imaging in any modality, image-guided medical treatment, imaging technology, and research that strengthens quality, safety, education, and innovation in imaging services. Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and whether it offers clear value for the journal’s readership.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if:

1. The manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
2. They can provide an objective and unbiased evaluation.
3. They can complete the review within the requested time frame.
4. They have no conflict of interest that could affect their judgment.

If a reviewer believes that only part of the manuscript matches their expertise, this should be communicated to the editor immediately.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest before agreeing to review. Conflicts may include:

• recent collaboration with the authors,
• shared institutional affiliation,
• personal or professional relationships,
• financial interests,
• direct academic competition,
• any other circumstance that could influence impartiality.

If a conflict is significant, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

• share the manuscript with others without editorial permission,
• use unpublished data, ideas, figures, or interpretations for their own work,
• contact the authors directly,
• discuss the manuscript outside the peer-review process.

If a reviewer wishes to involve a junior colleague in the review for training purposes, prior permission from the editor should be obtained.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers should alert the editor if they identify possible ethical concerns, including:

• plagiarism or substantial overlap with published work,
• duplicate or redundant publication,
• image manipulation,
• fabricated or falsified data,
• unethical research involving patients, participants, or animals,
• missing ethics approval or informed consent where required,
• inappropriate authorship claims,
• undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct a formal misconduct investigation, but they should report concerns clearly and confidentially to the editor.

How to Evaluate a Manuscript

1. Relevance and Scope

Consider whether the manuscript is appropriate for Imagen Diagnóstica. Ask:

• Is the topic relevant to diagnostic imaging, imaging practice, imaging technology, image-guided treatment, education, quality, or safety?
• Is the work useful for clinicians, imaging professionals, educators, or researchers in the field?
• Does the manuscript contribute something meaningful to the journal’s audience?

2. Originality and Contribution

Assess whether the paper offers a clear scholarly contribution.

• Does it address an important question?
• Does it add new knowledge, data, methods, or interpretation?
• Is the novelty clearly stated?
• Does it avoid being merely repetitive or derivative?

3. Scientific and Methodological Quality

Review the design and validity of the study.

• Are the objectives or research questions clearly stated?
• Is the study design appropriate for the aims?
• Are the methods described in enough detail to allow evaluation or replication?
• Are the sample, data collection, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and measurements appropriate?
• Are the statistical methods suitable and correctly applied?
• Are the results consistent with the methods?

For technical, educational, or methodological papers, evaluate whether the approach is logically structured, reproducible, and useful in practice.

4. Results and Interpretation

Consider whether the conclusions are supported by the findings.

• Are the results clearly presented?
• Are tables and figures necessary, accurate, and understandable?
• Are the conclusions justified by the data?
• Does the discussion acknowledge limitations?
• Are claims proportionate, or do the authors overstate their findings?

5. Clinical, Technical, or Educational Value

Because the journal serves a diagnostic imaging audience, reviewers should assess practical value.

• Does the paper have clinical relevance or technical usefulness?
• Does it improve quality, safety, workflow, education, or imaging interpretation?
• Does it offer lessons that can be applied in real imaging settings?

6. Presentation and Structure

Reviewers should also comment on readability.

• Is the manuscript clearly organized?
• Is the title accurate and informative?
• Is the abstract complete and balanced?
• Is the language understandable and professional?
• Are references relevant, current, and appropriate?

Reviewers do not need to perform line-by-line copyediting, but they should note if poor language or structure prevents proper evaluation.

Comments for Editors

Comments to the editor should be brief, direct, and confidential. They may include:

• your recommendation,
• concerns about originality, ethics, or methodology,
• whether the manuscript fits the journal,
• whether the problems are minor and fixable or major and fundamental.

Confidential comments should not contradict the tone of the comments sent to authors without good reason.

Comments for Authors

Comments to authors should be:

• respectful,
• constructive,
• specific,
• focused on improvement.

Useful reviews usually:

• begin with a brief summary of the manuscript,
• identify the main strengths,
• explain the main weaknesses,
• separate major issues from minor issues,
• give actionable suggestions.

Avoid personal remarks. Critique the work, not the authors.

Suggested Review Structure

Reviewers may find it helpful to structure their report as follows:

Summary
A brief description of what the manuscript studies and its potential contribution.

Major Comments
Important issues affecting validity, originality, interpretation, or suitability for publication.

Minor Comments
Smaller issues such as clarity, wording, references, figure labels, or formatting.

Recommendation
One of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Criteria for Recommendation

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or very minor changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is sound, but small improvements are needed in clarity, presentation, references, or limited interpretation.

Major Revision

The manuscript has value, but substantial revisions are needed in methods, analysis, structure, interpretation, or reporting before it can be reconsidered.

Reject

The manuscript is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality, has serious methodological flaws, contains unsupported conclusions, or presents ethical concerns that cannot be resolved through revision.

Timeliness

Reviewers should submit their reports within the requested deadline. If extra time is needed, they should inform the editorial office as soon as possible. Timely peer review is important for authors and for the efficiency of the editorial process.

Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

• act professionally and courteously,
• provide objective and scholarly judgment,
• avoid bias related to nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, seniority, language, or personal opinion,
• support the improvement of the manuscript wherever possible.

Final Note

Peer review is a professional and ethical responsibility. A strong review is fair, evidence-based, constructive, and focused on helping the editor reach a sound decision while helping authors strengthen their work.