The Roentgen Ray Review (R3) website is live: R3journal.org. All R3 social media handles have been staked. And as of July, unsolicited submissions for the American Roentgen Ray Society’s (ARRS) first journal launch since President Teddy Roosevelt was in office are open to everyone.
Starting early next year—and coinciding with ARRS’ own 125th anniversary celebration—R3 is poised to publish image-rich, clinically relevant content for one of radiology’s busiest memberships. Our brand-new online journal will post a weekly mix of “Pictorial Essays,” “Clinical Practice Challenges,” “Case Reports,” “Practice Solutions,” and six other types of articles—three of which offer CME credit. Commissioning and curating R3’s pixels will be the charge of John R. Leyendecker, MD, on faculty at the University of Texas Southwestern in Dallas since 2015.
His is a name well-known among us. Present ARRS Executive Council member and chair of our Science and Innovation Committee, Dr. Leyendecker’s association with North America’s first radiological society extends back to his in-training days, when he participated in ARRS’ inaugural “Introduction to Research” course during the 1990 Annual Meeting in Boston, MA. He’s done just about everything else at ARRS ever since: reviewing for AJR, writing for InPractice, directing Categorical Courses, etc. ad inf.
In his first InPractice interview as the very first editor of the Roentgen Ray Review, the abdominal radiologist, amateur astronomer, and United States Air Force veteran outlines a vision as clear as day. Responding to our members’ many educational needs, while being respectful of their time, his R3 is one packed with practical, easily digested information that can be applied immediately.
InPractice: Unlike other peer-reviewed journals, which solicit exclusively from presentations delivered during their societies’ respective Annual Meetings, Roentgen Ray Review will be decidedly less gatekept. How does this more ecumenical approach to submissions align with your overall editorial vision?
JRL: Between our Educational Exhibits and Categorical Course chapters, we are very fortunate to have great material presented at our Annual Meeting to solicit for the journal. However, I wanted to include additional categories of articles that might not be reflected in the meeting content and to open the journal to authors who might not be able to attend our meeting. We want the best content for our readers, regardless of where it originates, and I believe including both solicited and unsolicited articles helps accomplish that goal.
IP: For “Pictorial Essays,” images and figures are king. Radiology is an inherently visual speciality, yes, but are there any risks, practical or pedagogical, with paring down background discussions or future implications?
JRL: In-depth details aren’t useful if no one reads them. R3 was born out of a need for relevant content that fits with the realities of today’s busy radiology practices. That’s why we focus on short articles and images. I’m an amateur astronomer, and there is saying in our hobby that the best telescope is the one you use every night (Fig. 1). The same could be said of journals.
Fig. 1—Left: Dr. Leyendecker’s reproduction of the “Pillars of Creation” from the M16 Eagle Nebula…with just an 8-inch diameter backyard telescope! Right: Those same towering tendrils of cosmic dust and gas, care of the Hubble Space Telescope (courtesy of NASA, ESA, and Hubble Heritage Team.)
My goal is to make R3 the go-to journal for our busy members struggling to balance the need to stay current with the many other aspects of life vying for attention. There are only risks with this approach if critical information is withheld in the name of brevity. On the other hand, there might be substantial risk of missing critical information if it is hidden within a barrage of extraneous details. I believe images are an inherently efficient means of conveying information. That’s why emojis are so popular. When images are combined with succinct and relevant text, you have a powerful combination. And for readers wanting more details, there are many options now available online. I want to emphasize, however, that R3 has no intention of dumbing down content or shying away from complex topics. We just want to distill the information prior to consumption. If your typical journal is a pint of lager, we’re like a shot of tequila.
IP: Specific “Clinical Practice Challenge” scenarios will be followed by a question on next steps. Is the multiple-choice format here tailored for the busy radiologist, to mirror portions of the American Board of Radiology (ABR) exam, or something else entirely?
JRL: I include the multiple-choice question to encourage the reader to actively engage with the material and compare what they might do with a content expert’s approach to the scenario. I envision this eventually incorporating a polling function which will allow for comparisons across readers. Of course, there might be some relevance for those taking the current ABR exam, but we aren’t specifically targeting that group. And we certainly don’t want to dredge up any unpleasant memories for our readers who have already taken the exam.
IP: “WTF” is R3’s abbreviation for “What’s That Finding?” Be it new and novel or a fresh take on a classic sign, in the eyes of the editor, what makes for a good “WTF?”
JRL: A good WTF is a new observation, complication, sign, or implanted device that might be unfamiliar to a typical practicing radiologist. Anyone who reads a high volume of imaging examinations can relate to being stumped by something they haven’t encountered before. New devices are constantly being introduced in medicine, and radiologists are not always in the loop when their colleagues start placing them in patients. Novel systemic therapies can be associated with new imaging findings or complications, and recognizing the association between treatment and imaging finding might be critical to management. Finally, new contrast agents or imaging techniques can alter the appearance of an imaging examination or classic sign, and radiologists need to be aware of these alterations so they can appropriately adjust their interpretations. The “WTF” feature of the journal is one means of alerting readers to something new or different that they might encounter, so they can manage their patients appropriately.
IP: Nowadays, so much scholarly content is appearing on preprint repositories—more than 75 at last count. Quality control remains a sticking point, but there is rigorous and robust research, too. Would you reject a submission because it was posted on a preprint server?
JRL: Preprint servers allow authors to quickly disseminate their work and to claim primacy. Since many of our article types are unique, it is unlikely that many of our submissions will have been previously posted on a preprint server. Regardless, our main concern is whether or not an article is under consideration by another journal. There are plenty of reasons to reject an article that has been posted to a preprint server—for example, if the information presented isn’t sufficiently novel, accurate, or relevant. But I don’t think that posting on a preprint server alone would dissuade me publishing a high-quality paper that is not under consideration by another peer-reviewed journal.
IP: Although generative AI is everywhere in biomedical publishing, alas, disclosures and attribution of its use are not. What is the journal’s official stance on using this paradigm-shifting technology, like ChatGPT and its ilk, in drafting an R3 article?
JRL: Authors are not prohibited from using tools such as generative AI to draft their articles for R3. However, they must disclose details of its use and accept full responsibility for whatever the technology produces. In other words, the use of AI does not obviate authors of their responsibility to ensure their manuscripts are accurate, free of plagiarism, and that all appropriate attributions are included. This is one reason why R3 does not recognize AI programs as authors. This might change once humanity is enslaved by its creation.
John R. Leyendecker, MD, is adjunct professor of radiology at UT Southwestern, where he has been a faculty member since 2015. Previously, he served as vice chair of clinical operations, followed by vice chair of academic affairs. Dr. Leyendecker completed his residency at Emory University in 1993, serving as chief resident. In 1994, he completed vascular and interventional radiology fellowship at Wilford Hall United States Air Force (USAF) Medical Center, and after serving an additional six years as an interventional radiologist and abdominal imager in the USAF, Dr. Leyendecker completed body MRI fellowship at the Mallinckrodt Institute in St. Louis, MO. He has since worked clinically as an abdominal imager, while co-authoring two popular textbooks: A Practical Guide to Abdominal and Pelvic MRI and Problem Solving in Abdominal Imaging. Dr. Leyendecker has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers and clinical review articles and co-authored many award-winning scientific abstracts and educational exhibits presented at national and international meetings. His ability to distill complex topics and connect with his audience led to speaking engagements around the world, and in 2014, he served as the Society of Abdominal Radiology’s (SAR) Igor Laufer Visiting Professor. For many years, he served as an oral examiner for the American Board of Radiology and was awarded fellowship in the SAR in 2013 and the American College of Radiology in 2021. His intense dedication to educating and elevating his peers and future generations of radiologists has yielded many teaching and mentorship awards. Dr. Leyendecker’s teaching efforts now focus on leadership and emotional intelligence, and in 2022, he was co-recipient of an Association of Academic Radiology Strategic Alignment Grant to develop a nationwide course to cultivate leadership and emotional intelligence skills in early-career radiology faculty.