The Swiss Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (SJORANM) is committed to rigorous, independent, fair, transparent, and constructive peer review.

Peer review is an essential component of scientific publishing. Its purpose is not only to support editorial decisions, but also to improve the scientific quality, clarity, reliability, and clinical relevance of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

SJORANM generally applies a double-anonymized external peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the review process.

All editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal. Reviewer recommendations are an important component of editorial assessment, but do not, by themselves, determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

1. Submission and Author Identity Verification

Manuscripts must be submitted through the SJORANM online submission system and must comply with the journal's current submission requirements.

SJORANM considers reliable author identification an important component of research integrity.

All authors listed on a manuscript are therefore required to provide and authenticate their ORCID iD before the manuscript can enter the external peer review process.

ORCID authentication helps distinguish researchers with similar names, improves the integrity of authorship metadata, and contributes to reliable attribution throughout the scholarly record.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors fulfil the journal's authorship and identity requirements.

2. Technical and Ethical Pre-check

Before a manuscript is considered for external peer review, the editorial team performs an initial technical and ethical assessment.

This assessment may include verification of:

• completeness of the submission;
• manuscript structure and article type;
• author information and ORCID authentication;
• anonymization requirements;
• ethics statements, where applicable;
• informed consent and patient privacy requirements;
• conflicts of interest;
• funding disclosures;
• authorship and contributor information;
• availability and quality of figures, tables and supplementary material;
• compliance with article-specific reporting requirements.

A manuscript that does not meet essential technical or ethical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before scientific evaluation begins.

A technical return does not necessarily constitute editorial rejection.

3. Plagiarism and Text-Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and potentially problematic textual overlap before entering the external peer review process.

Similarity alone does not automatically constitute misconduct. Editorial assessment takes into account the nature, extent, location, and context of any identified overlap.

Where significant concerns arise regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate reuse of previously published material, or other forms of publication misconduct, the editorial process may be suspended while the matter is investigated.

Serious concerns may result in editorial rejection and, where appropriate, further action under the journal's publication ethics procedures.

4. Initial Editorial Assessment

Following completion of the technical requirements, the manuscript undergoes an initial scientific assessment by an Editor.

The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review.

The assessment considers, as appropriate:

• compatibility with the aims and scope of SJORANM;
• scientific relevance;
• originality;
• methodological credibility;
• clinical or educational value;
• quality and clarity of presentation;
• compliance with fundamental ethical requirements;
• suitability for the selected article category.

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review when it is clearly outside the scope of the journal, does not meet basic scientific or ethical standards, lacks sufficient relevance for SJORANM, or requires fundamental changes that would exceed the purpose of peer review.

Such decisions are editorial decisions and are intended to avoid unnecessary delays for authors and reviewers.

5. Double-Anonymized External Peer Review

Manuscripts considered suitable after initial editorial assessment are normally submitted to double-anonymized external peer review.

Under this model:

• reviewers are not informed of the authors' identities;
• authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities;
• manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the journal's anonymization requirements.

Double anonymization is intended to reduce avoidable influence arising from institutional affiliation, academic seniority, geographical origin, or personal familiarity.

Although complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed — particularly in highly specialized research fields — SJORANM expects all participants to respect the principle and purpose of the process.

6. Selection of Reviewers

One or more qualified reviewers may be invited according to the scientific, clinical, and methodological requirements of the manuscript.

SJORANM deliberately does not define a fixed number of reviewers for every submission. The number and type of expert assessments required may vary according to manuscript complexity, subject matter, article type, and available specialist expertise.

Reviewer selection may take into account:

• relevant specialist expertise;
• scientific experience;
• publication record;
• methodological competence;
• clinical knowledge;
• previous reviewing experience;
• absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Editors may invite members of the SJORANM Editorial Board or qualified external experts.

The journal seeks reviewers capable of providing an independent, balanced, evidence-based, and constructive assessment.

Acceptance of a review invitation implies that the reviewer considers themselves sufficiently qualified to evaluate the manuscript and able to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

7. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, professionally, and confidentially.

A high-quality review should help both the authors and the Editors understand the strengths and limitations of the work.

Reviewers should focus particularly on:

• scientific originality;
• methodological quality;
• validity of the conclusions;
• consistency between data and interpretation;
• clinical relevance;
• scientific presentation;
• appropriateness of figures and tables;
• adequacy of the literature;
• ethical concerns, where identifiable;
• limitations that should be addressed or acknowledged.

Reviews should be constructive, balanced, and evidence-based.

Personal criticism, discriminatory language, hostile comments, or comments unrelated to scientific evaluation are inappropriate.

Reviewers should distinguish between:

• changes necessary for scientific validity;
• changes that would substantially improve the manuscript; and
• optional suggestions reflecting personal preference.

This distinction helps authors respond efficiently and supports proportionate editorial decisions.

8. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to SJORANM are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

• distribute the manuscript;
• disclose its content to unauthorized persons;
• use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;
• contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript;
• upload confidential manuscript material into external systems or services in a manner that compromises confidentiality.

Any additional person contributing to a review should be disclosed to the Editor and must be subject to the same confidentiality obligations.

Confidentiality continues after completion of the review process.

9. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or circumstances that could reasonably affect — or appear to affect — their independence.

Potential conflicts may include personal, professional, institutional, academic, or financial relationships.

A reviewer who believes that a conflict of interest may impair objective assessment should decline the invitation or inform the Editor before proceeding.

The existence of a professional relationship does not automatically constitute a disqualifying conflict. The decisive question is whether independent and impartial evaluation can reasonably be assured.

The Editor determines whether a declared conflict requires reassignment.

10. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Membership of the SJORANM Editorial Board does not influence the scientific evaluation of a manuscript.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Editors, Associate Editors, Advisory Board members, or other persons involved in the journal's editorial activities must be handled independently from the author concerned.

An Editor who is an author, co-author, collaborator, or otherwise materially conflicted with a manuscript must not participate in:

• reviewer selection;
• evaluation of reviewer reports;
• editorial discussion concerning the manuscript;
• the final publication decision.

The manuscript is assigned to an independent Editor who assumes responsibility for the complete editorial process.

The same scientific and ethical standards apply to Editorial Board manuscripts as to all other submissions.

11. Editorial Assessment of Reviewer Reports

Reviewer reports are advisory.

They provide expert scientific input but do not constitute the final decision of the journal.

After the reviews have been received, the responsible Editor evaluates:

• the manuscript itself;
• the quality and consistency of the reviewer reports;
• the scientific importance of the issues raised;
• the feasibility and proportionality of requested revisions;
• areas of agreement or disagreement between reviewers.

Editors are not required to follow a reviewer recommendation when, after independent assessment, another decision is scientifically justified.

Where reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, the Editor may independently resolve the disagreement, request clarification, invite additional expert assessment, obtain methodological input, or proceed to an editorial decision based on the totality of available evidence.

The final responsibility for the decision rests with the editorial team.

12. Editorial Decisions

Accept

The manuscript is scientifically and editorially suitable for publication. Minor technical or production corrections may still be required before publication.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication and requires limited changes that do not fundamentally alter the scientific work.

Major Revision

Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered. A request for major revision should not be interpreted as a guarantee of eventual acceptance.

Resubmit for Review

In selected circumstances, extensive revision may justify submission of a substantially revised version for renewed scientific assessment.

Reject / Decline after Review

The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in its current form. Reasons may include substantial methodological concerns, insufficient scientific validity, inadequate response to major concerns, limited relevance, ethical problems, or other issues that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

Editorial decisions should be communicated clearly, professionally, and respectfully.

13. Revision of Manuscripts

When revision is invited, authors should submit:

1. a revised manuscript; and
2. a structured response to the reviewer and editorial comments.

Authors should address comments point by point.

For each substantive comment, the response should indicate either how the manuscript was changed or why a suggested change was not made.

Authors are not required to agree with every reviewer suggestion. Reasoned scientific disagreement is entirely acceptable.

However, responses should remain professional and should provide sufficient justification for the Editor to evaluate the issue.

14. Re-review

Revised manuscripts may be returned to one or more reviewers when the Editor considers additional expert assessment necessary.

Re-review may be particularly appropriate when:

• major methodological concerns were raised;
• substantial new analyses have been introduced;
• important scientific conclusions have changed;
• the authors' response requires specialist evaluation.

Minor revisions may be assessed directly by the responsible Editor without additional external review.

The decision to seek further review rests with the Editor.

15. Final Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is based on the complete editorial record, including the submitted manuscript, reviewer reports, revised manuscript versions, author responses, ethical and methodological considerations, and the Editor's independent scientific assessment.

The purpose of peer review is to inform editorial judgement rather than replace it.

Ultimate responsibility for publication decisions therefore remains with SJORANM's editorial leadership.

Neither journal ownership, commercial interests, financial supporters, sponsors, nor institutional relationships may determine the scientific acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

16. Editorial Independence

SJORANM maintains a clear distinction between journal ownership and administration and scientific editorial decision-making.

The journal is published by SJORANM GmbH, while scientific publication decisions are made according to editorial and scientific criteria.

Funding, sponsorship, institutional cooperation, or other external relationships must not influence reviewer selection, scientific evaluation, editorial recommendations, or acceptance and rejection decisions.

This principle applies to all manuscripts without exception.

17. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, or demonstrably incorrect scientific interpretation may submit a reasoned appeal.

An appeal should:

• identify the manuscript clearly;
• state the specific grounds for appeal;
• address the scientific or procedural issue in question;
• avoid simply repeating arguments already considered during review.

Disagreement with an editorial decision alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for appeal.

Where appropriate, an appeal may be reviewed by an Editor who was not materially involved in the original decision.

18. Complaints and Concerns Regarding Editorial Conduct

Concerns regarding peer review, editorial communication, potential conflicts of interest, or procedural fairness may be submitted to the journal.

SJORANM seeks to address such concerns objectively, respectfully, and proportionately.

Where a complaint concerns the conduct or decision of a particular Editor, the matter should, where feasible, be reviewed independently by another member of the editorial leadership.

19. Publication Ethics and Research Misconduct

Suspected scientific or publication misconduct may be investigated at any stage of the publication process.

Concerns may include, among others:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• fabricated or falsified data;
• manipulated images;
• inappropriate authorship;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• breaches of patient privacy;
• absence of required consent;
• unethical research conduct;
• manipulation of peer review.

Where necessary, SJORANM may request clarification, supporting documentation, or original data from the authors.

The editorial process may be suspended while concerns are investigated.

Depending on the findings, actions may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate editorial measures.

20. Post-publication Corrections and Editorial Action

Scientific publishing does not end when an article is published.

If a relevant error or ethical concern is identified after publication, SJORANM may evaluate whether formal editorial action is required.

Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, this may include:

• correction;
• clarification;
• addendum;
• expression of concern;
• retraction.

Post-publication action should preserve the transparency and integrity of the scholarly record.

21. Special Requirements for Radiological Case Reports

Radiological Case Reports submitted to SJORANM are additionally evaluated according to the journal's dedicated framework:

SJORANM Guide to Radiological Case Reports – From an Interesting Patient to a Publishable Paper

The framework provides a structured 12-step approach for authors, reviewers, and Editors and includes additional requirements concerning original imaging, diagnostic confirmation, differential diagnosis, follow-up, patient perspective, informed consent, privacy, educational value, and editorial technical pre-check.

Read the SJORANM Guide to Radiological Case Reports →

22. Constructive Peer Review

SJORANM regards peer review as both a quality-control mechanism and a form of scientific collaboration.

A good peer review process should identify scientific weaknesses without losing sight of the value of constructive dialogue.

Authors should be treated respectfully regardless of:

• career stage;
• academic title;
• institutional affiliation;
• geographical location;
• native language;
• previous publication history.

Likewise, reviewers contribute significant expertise and time to scientific publishing and should receive professional, efficient, and appreciative editorial communication.

23. Continuous Development of the Peer Review Process

Scientific publishing continues to evolve.

SJORANM therefore regards its peer review and editorial procedures as part of a continuously developing quality framework.

The journal may update this policy in response to:

• developments in publication ethics;
• changes in reporting standards;
• technological developments;
• emerging forms of research misconduct;
• experience gained from authors, reviewers, and Editors;
• changes in the international scholarly publishing environment.

Material changes to the journal's peer review model should be communicated transparently.