INSTRUCTIONS FOR REVIEWERS
The following information provides general guidance for reviewing articles for The Journal of Nuclear
Medicine (JNM), as well as specific instructions for reviewing (1) original scientific reports (human and
laboratory studies), (2) review articles, and (3) special contributions.
JNM reviewers may seek assistance from sources within their institution when reviewing manuscripts, but
the data reported in submitted manuscripts must be kept confidential at all times.
CE Accreditation for Reviewers
The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) is accredited by the Accreditation
Council on Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education activities for
physicians. As an accredited provider, the SNMMI may grant AMA PRA Category 1 creditTM for review of
manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Nuclear Medicine (JNM) for possible publication. Up to 3 credits
per manuscript may be granted for each review, and physicians may claim up to 15 credits per year for
manuscript review. Original contributions to the medical literature that require multiple reviewers are
eligible for credit, including major papers, original reports, perspectives/reviews, opinions/commentary,
computers in nuclear medicine, instrumentation, and technical innovations.
*You must indicate whether or not you are interested in obtaining CE credit by selecting the appropriate
box just after the Reviewer Evaluation Form. The amount of credit earned will be determined by the
scientific editor assigned to the manuscript and the below criteria. Each criterion is worth 1 CME credit:

Comments address both format and scientific method.

Comments include an overall summary and a succinct review of important strengths and
weaknesses.

Ratings match the decision made.
No CME credit will be given if the review is not provided within 2 weeks of the review request.
Target Audience: Physicians who review manuscripts submitted to JNM for possible publication.
Goals and Objectives: After completing the review of the manuscript assigned by one of the editors of
JNM, the reviewer should have acquired improved skills in performing critical analyses of the medical
literature and improved knowledge of current issues and developments in the field of nuclear medicine
and allied sciences. This improved skill level and knowledge base should result in increased skill in
reviewing and authoring future journal articles, as well as improved behavior and performance in practice.
Quality of Reviews
The quality of the reviews will be graded by the editors according to the following scale:

Grade 1: The review is not helpful.

Grade 2: Format is addressed but not scientific methods.

Grade 3: Scientific methods are addressed.

Grade 4: Strengths and weaknesses are addressed.

Grade 5: Accept/reject/revise/priority and rationale are provided.
1
Manuscript Scoring
Please use the confidential reviewer evaluation form to score the article on a scale of 1–5 for
originality, methodology, presentation, and priority. Because the acceptance rate is approximately
25%, scores of three (3) or less will likely result in rejection of the manuscript. Scores of 4 or more
will likely result in acceptance. The priority score is very important.
Originality: Is it new?

Score 1: (Partially published previously by the authors).

Score 2: (Similar data published by others).

Score 3: (Confirmatory but needs additional data).

Score 4: (New or confirmatory and definitive evidence).

Score 5: (Groundbreaking and newsworthy).
Methodology: Is it true?

Score 1: (Weak/not appropriate).

Score 2: (Needs more experiments or subjects).

Score 3: (Needs additional analysis or reanalysis).

Score 4: (Appropriate but needs more information).

Score 5: (Strong/most appropriate).
Presentation:

Score 1: (Poor/not appropriate).

Score 2: (Weak and confusing/needs major rewriting).

Score 3: (Almost appropriate/needs minor rewriting or adjusting of illustrations).

Score 4: (Appropriate/needs minor rewriting).

Score 5: (Excellent/most appropriate).
Priority: Is it likely to change patient care or future research?

Score 1: (Lowest priority/no impact on patient care or future research).

Score 2: (Minimal impact on patient care or future research).

Score 3: (Impact is difficult to evaluate).

Score 4: (Probable impact on patient care or future research).

Score 5: (Highest priority/definite impact on patient care or future research).
Comments to the Editor
Your comments to the editor should summarize your overall assessment of the manuscript and explain
your recommendations to the editor with regard to revision and publication of the article (acceptance or
rejection). What priority for publication do you suggest? Is the manuscript more suitable for some other
journal? If you believe it is, explain the reasons and suggest a more suitable journal to the editor. Also,
2
kindly type your comments to the editor. The scores and comments to the editor are not shown to
authors.
Your explicit recommendation to accept or reject the manuscript should be limited to the confidential
reviewer evaluation form.
Comments to Authors
On the form for comments to authors, provide some tactful criticism and include constructive comments
for improving the article, even if you are recommending rejection. JNM does not reveal the identity of
reviewers to authors, and to help maintain such anonymity, do not sign your name at the end of your
review. Also, kindly type your comments to the author.
In addition, if you made suggestive edits on the manuscript during the review process that you feel the
authors should see, please email those specific pages to the editorial office at jnm@vanderbilt.edu. JNM
appreciates and recognizes prompt reviews.
Review Points for All Articles
Conflict of Interest:
Are you aware of any financial, personal, or professional relationships of the authors that could represent
a potential conflict of interest? Do you have any financial, personal, or professional relationships that
could represent a potential conflict of interest by reviewing this paper?
Overall Organization and Accuracy:
Each manuscript should be evaluated with regard to the following key questions.

Is it new? Does the paper address new ground compared with prior literature? Has any of the
specific material in the manuscript been published previously? If so, inform the editor and give
details.

Is it true? Are more experiments or subjects needed? Is additional analysis or reanalysis
needed?

Is it likely to change future research or patient care? With the current economic and
regulatory environment, comparative effectiveness research is becoming critical. Clinical studies
need to address patient outcome if possible but should at least address the impact on patient
management. A reference standard for the final diagnosis is critical as well.

Have any ideas been over- or underemphasized?

Are any specific revisions needed?
Should some sections of the manuscript be expanded, condensed, or omitted, and for what reasons? Are
the authors’ statements clear? (Challenge ambiguous statements.) Suggest whether all parts of the
manuscript should be published. Extensive tables or long reference lists may merit publication, but they
are costly to print and interest only a few readers. Should some sections of the manuscript, tables, or
illustrations be published as on-line supplemental material only? Are statistical terms, abbreviations, and
symbols defined?
Title of the Article:
Is the title of the article appropriate and clear?
Abstract:
Is the abstract specific, representative of the article, and in the correct form? (JNM does not require
structured abstracts for review articles.)
Key Words:
3
Have key words been provided, and do they represent the article adequately? Are some key words
irrelevant?
Introduction:
Is the purpose of the article made clear in the introduction?
Materials and Methods:
This section should include a statement about institutional review board approval, informed consent,
HIPAA compliance, and animal care committee approval, as appropriate. The standard statement for
institutional review board approval and informed consent is the following: “The study has been approved
by the institutional review board [or equivalent], and all subjects gave written informed consent [or the
need for written informed consent was waived].” The trial registration number should be provided, if
applicable. For any first-in-humans study of a new radiopharmaceutical published in JNM, the following
language should be included in manuscripts to facilitate allowing others to study the drug under the
Radioactive Drug Research Committee regulations, rather than having to file additional applications for an
investigational new drug or an exploratory investigational new drug: “The mean and standard deviation of
the administered mass of [drug] was XX ± YY g (range, AA–ZZ g). The mean administered activity was
XX ± YY MBq (range, AA–ZZ MBq). There were no adverse or clinically detectable pharmacologic effects
in any of the [##] subjects. No significant changes in vital signs or the results of laboratory studies or
electrocardiograms were observed [if true].”
The number and selection of subjects must be clearly described, as well as the prospective or
retrospective nature of the study. The procedures must be described in enough detail to allow
reproducibility by others.
The study should provide the numbers of observations, including (1) the number of patients considered,
(2) the number of patients excluded, (3) the number of patients who entered the trial, (4) the number of
patients who entered but were later found ineligible, and (5) the number of patients who dropped out of
the study and their reasons. Are losses to observation reported (e.g., dropouts)?
For diagnostic and therapeutic studies, the authors should have provided a flow diagram or checklist as
described in the STARD Statement (http://www.stard-statement.org/) and the CONSORT Statement
(http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/).
Statistical Methods:
The last paragraph of the Materials and Methods should describe the statistical methods. Whenever
appropriate, check to see that statistical methods are organized and described in enough detail to enable
a knowledgeable reader with access to original data to verify (not duplicate) the results.
Descriptions of statistical methods used for randomization, as well as statistical methods used to analyze,
should be in the Materials and Methods section.
Assess the overall status of the paper’s statistical methods: Was the population sample appropriate and
representative? Are there any important differences among subgroups that are explainable or
predictable? Are covariate effects and confounding variables controlled? Are study design and statistical
methods references to standard works rather than to specific papers where a method or design was
originally used? Are treatment assignments systematic and randomized, or simply haphazard, and are
they described in enough detail? Are the names given for the statistical methods and for any computer
programs used for randomization? Is blinding described in enough detail? Were the blinding methods
effective? Is a causal relationship between datasets being suggested when there is merely an
association? Are findings quantified and presented with appropriate indicators of measurement of error or
uncertainty? Check for confidence limits (e.g., central tendency and range), which are preferable to P
values. Is a formal review by a statistician necessary?
Results:
Are there errors of fact or interpretation?
Are there errors in calculations (scan and spot-check)?
4
Is content repeated or duplicated? A common fault is repetition in the text of data in tables or figures;
suggest that tabular data be interpreted or summarized, not merely repeated in the text.
Discussion:
Is all of the discussion relevant? If the authors have omitted important references, cite them; if they have
included inconsequential or nonpertinent references, suggest deleting them.
Tables and Figures:
Are the form and arrangement of tables and figures satisfactory? Call attention to graphs and tables that
are hard to read because they are crowded with too much information. Call attention to illustrations that
should be combined.
Can tables be improved by rearranging the data or changing the title? Tables should stand as
independent units, should provide adequate identification of heads and subheads, and should be
organized in some logical way (e.g., by a chronology or decreasing order of frequency).
Can the figures be improved? Note whether letters, numerals, or symbols may be illegible if they are
reduced and whether photographs have superfluous areas that might be cropped. Are there captions or
symbols that may be better included in the legend? Do illustrations show what they purport to show?
Could an illustration benefit from revision (e.g., from a pie chart to a bar graph, or from a column graph to
a line graph)?
Original Scientific Reports (Human Studies and Laboratory Studies)
Is the objective of the study important for the field of nuclear medicine?
Are the experimental methods described adequately?
Are the study design and methods appropriate for the purposes of the study?
Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable a reader to duplicate them?
Review Articles and Special Contributions
Is the presentation lucid, logical, and concise?
Is the material relevant?
Does the material have educational value?
Will this information improve or update the expertise of a significant number of readers of JNM?
Do the references adequately cover the topic being reviewed and provide enough information for further
reading?
Are there too many references, or are they too old or irrelevant?
Appendix: Helpful References
1. Fryback DG and Thornbury JR. The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:88–94.
2. Sica GT. Bias in research studies: Radiology. 2006;238:780–789.
5