Author Guidelines
Our Author Guidelines provide a comprehensive framework for preparing and submitting manuscripts. Covering journal‑specific requirements, supporting authors in presenting clear and well‑structured research contributions.
Journal Specific Instructions
Welcome!
Thank you for your interest in publishing an article in the journal RoFo! The journal publishes German- and English-language articles. Please inform yourself about our general author guidelines, our journal policy and the special features of individual sections. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact roefo@thieme.de
General information on preparing scholarly articles can be found at: https://www.thieme.com/de-de/uebersicht-wissenschaftlicher-artikel-8dde7aa754afdcdd
Further information on manuscript preparation can be found below and in the accompanying documents.
Manuscript Submission
Manuscripts should be submitted via our submission system: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/roefo
Manuscript Types
Original Research Articles
Original scientific research articles may be submitted for the following subject areas or subcategories: Abdomen, Academic Radiology (Research, Teaching, Evidence-Based Medicine), Experimental Radiology, Gastrointestinal Tract, Vessels, Health Policy, Heart, Interventional Radiology, Pediatric Radiology, Contrast Media, Head and Neck, Breast, Molecular Imaging, Musculoskeletal System, Neuroradiology, Oncological Imaging, Quality/Quality Assurance, Technology and Medical Physics, Thorax, Urogenital Tract.
- Abstract: The abstract is crucial for the international and national visibility of your scientific work. We therefore ask that you provide a structured and particularly well-written abstract. Please ensure that all statistically relevant facts and figures are listed under “Results” so that readers can grasp all relevant data simply by reading the abstract.
- Key Points at the end of the abstract (for Original Articles, Rapid Communications, and Reviews): These should summarize the main message(s) of the paper and highlight the contribution the work makes to the current state of knowledge. In the publication, the Key Points appear immediately after the abstract and are also included in PubMed.
- The introduction may be limited to a brief outline of the rationale and research question. The methodology section contains detailed information about the patients (including control groups) or the study material. The individual methods, equipment, and procedures should be described in such a way that the results can be replicated.
- The results should follow the individual points of the research question or study protocol. They may be presented as text or in the form of tables or figures.
- The discussion highlights the novel and significant aspects of the study without repeating the details of the results. It highlights the significance and limitations of the findings and refers to observations from other studies. The conclusions derived from the results should be included at the end of the discussion.
- The clinical relevance of the study is described in 3–4 separate sentences (with bullet points). Place these sentences at the end of the main text (heading: “Clinical Relevance of the Study”).
Rapid Communication
Short, concise original research articles with highly topical content that require rapid publication. A clear justification for this must be provided in the cover letter. Submitted manuscripts undergo a fast-track review process, meaning that they are reviewed within 4 weeks and, if accepted, require only minimal revisions.
Reviews
Review articles on the current state of research or on continuing education and professional development.
Structure: Abstract, Introduction, Main Body, and Conclusion
- Abstract: A short paragraph summarizing the key points of the review is sufficient. A detailed outline is not required.
- Introduction: The introduction places the topic within its academic context and explains its relevance. It makes clear why the chosen research question is of practical significance. The research question should be precisely formulated to clearly define the goal of the paper and the underlying research interest. To help readers understand the methodological approach, the introduction should briefly describe how the literature was researched, selected, and evaluated.
- Main body: The main body explains key terms, models, and concepts necessary for understanding the topic. It is important to present the current state of research; to this end, all relevant studies should be systematically presented, and various scientific perspectives and findings should be summarized in an organized manner. The results and findings of the presented studies should also be compared and discussed by identifying similarities and differences and critically evaluating the studies in terms of their validity and methodological quality.
- Conclusion: In conclusion, the key findings should be concisely presented and related to the research question. The outlook should highlight existing research gaps, open questions, and possible approaches for future scientific investigations.
The Interesting Case
Concise, brief case descriptions. They consist of four structured main sections: Introduction, Case Description, Discussion, and Conclusion. The text structure follows exactly that of an original scientific article, with the case description in the case report corresponding to the Methods and Results sections of an original article. The introduction provides the rationale for writing the case report and relevant background information. The case description presents the case chronologically and with all necessary details to ensure clear comprehensibility. In the discussion, the distinctive features of the presented case are highlighted and critically compared with the existing literature. Like an original research article, a case report must include a clear conclusion; this should be concise and have a concrete clinical relevance.
Pictorial Essay
The full spectrum of a clinical picture, excellently documented using a multimodal image series (including clinical presentation, histology, and therapy; not a single case study). Numerous high-quality images with didactically meaningful captions. The text itself is concise and serves primarily to organize the illustrations. A differential diagnosis of the described clinical picture is desired.
Editorials
Editorials are generally written at the initiative of the editors.
Contributions to the following (german-language) sections
- Forum on Young Radiology
- Forum on Health Strategy
- Pioneers and Innovations in Radiology
are planned by the editors and the publisher; authors are generally invited to contribute. If you are interested in writing an article, please contact: roefo@thieme.de
View and Download Documents
Thieme Policies
This section summarizes the Thieme-wide standards and guidelines. They provide a consistent framework, ensure uniform quality, and support clear, aligned workflows across the organization.
Other
Select Crowd Review
Crowd Review at RoFo
The quality of scholarly work is traditionally ensured through peer review [1, 2]. At RöFo, we rely on double-blind review, in which two to three reviewers evaluate the work anonymously for the authors.
The peer review process takes a considerable amount of time before a final decision is reached [1]. Furthermore, as the number of papers requiring review increases, the workload on peer reviewers continues to grow. On the other hand, diversification and specialization within academic fields are narrowing the pool of potential reviewers capable of evaluating a paper in its entirety—a problem that compels us to seek new models and approaches for ensuring the quality of scientific publications.
Select Crowd Reviewing—Many Small Contributions from Reviewers for a Larger Whole
In October 2019, we introduced “Select Crowd Reviewing” (SCR) at RöFo, a process in which a group of selected experts collaboratively and anonymously reviews a manuscript—an innovative, efficient approach to evaluating scientific manuscripts [3, 4]. Our main goal with SCR is to receive a variety of suggestions for improvement from more than the usual two to three reviewers, to initiate a lively scientific discussion, and to reach a decision in a relatively short amount of time.
The “crowd” reviewers provide anonymous feedback on the manuscript within a closed system. In doing so, a reviewer may focus on specific aspects of the work as needed. The sum of all these contributions ultimately leads to an overall assessment of the scientific work. Since the “crowd” reviewers work on the review in parallel rather than sequentially, the process can be accelerated, and a final decision on the manuscript can be reached more quickly. This has been confirmed by an initial evaluation conducted by the journal “Synlett,” which has been offering CR for some time now [3, 4] .
Another advantage of Select Crowd Review over “traditional” peer review is that reviewers can engage in an exchange of ideas regarding their comments, while maintaining anonymity among the reviewers themselves.
Three DRG working groups support the project
As a pilot project and to gain relevant experience within our radiology community, we initially planned to offer the SCR in the fields of abdominal diagnostics and uroradiology. Professor Hamm presented the SCR to the two DRG working groups at their general meetings during the German Radiology Congress in Leipzig. We would like to thank the DRG working groups—the “Gastrointestinal/Abdominal Diagnostics Working Group,” chaired by Professor Lars Grenacher, M.D., and the “Uroradiology and Urogenital Diagnostics Working Group,” chaired by Priv. -Doz. Dr. med. Lars Schimmöller, for spontaneously pledging their support for the project and nominating several experts from their ranks for the “crowd.”
Following a successful initial pilot phase, we were able to expand the SCR to the field of cardiovascular diagnostics thanks to the support of the Cardiovascular Diagnostics Working Group, chaired by Professor Dr. med. David Maintz.
As Select Crowd Review Editor, Priv.-Doz. Dr. Dominik Geisel of the Department of Radiology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin oversees the SC review processes.
We are pleased to offer you, as authors, this approach for the three aforementioned fields as an additional (and voluntary) review option when submitting your manuscripts. As an author, you can thus choose whether your work will be reviewed through the traditional peer review process or through a Select Crowd Review.
On behalf of the editors of RöFo and Thieme Publishing, we would like to extend our sincere thanks to everyone involved for their contributions to this ambitious project!
We look forward to receiving your manuscripts for RöFo!
References
[1] Schmitz J. Handbuch CoScience/Peer Review. https://handbuch.tib.eu/w/Handbuch_CoScience/ Peer_Review. Last Access 29.07.2019
[2] Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. 50 1968–2018 Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of STM. 5th ed.
International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2018
[3] List B. Crowd-based peer review can be good and fast. Nature 2017; 546: 9. doi:10.1038/546009a
[4] Nguyen TM. The cate for crowd peer review. c&en Chemical&Engeneering News 2018; 96
[2] Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. 50 1968–2018 Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of STM. 5th ed.
International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers; 2018
[3] List B. Crowd-based peer review can be good and fast. Nature 2017; 546: 9. doi:10.1038/546009a
[4] Nguyen TM. The cate for crowd peer review. c&en Chemical&Engeneering News 2018; 96