AKJ Imaging and Pathology  

AKJ Imaging and Pathology is designed to aid readers in understanding the connection between clinical, radiographic, and pathologic features of a disease state. Each submission should include distinct clinical, radiologic, and pathologic sections within the case presentation and the discussion.

The format for submission to this section is as follows:

• Title: should include a short summary of the presenting feature, but not the diagnosis (ie, Dyspnea with slow-growing mass of the left hemithorax)
• Case Presentation: should include the following sections in sequence without the use of subheadings and without giving away the diagnosis:
  • A clinical findings section should mention the relevant positives and negatives while avoiding detailed description of hospital course. The focus should be on the approach taken by the authors to make the diagnosis. Comments on the differential diagnosis and a table summarizing the clinical and radiologic features of the differential diagnoses are desirable.
  • A radiologic findings section should briefly detail the plain chest radiograph (no corresponding figure need be submitted) and describe in detail the additional imaging studies performed, emphasizing findings that point to the diagnosis
  • A pathologic findings section should describe these findings in detail and should focus on correlations with the radiologic findings. The pathology presented should confirm the diagnosis. Gross pathology or high-quality, low-power images that capture the radiologic and pathologic correlation are recommended.
• What is the diagnosis? Alternative questions may also be included (ie, What study should be conducted next?) in addition to the diagnosis question.
• Diagnosis: XXX; should also include the answer to any other questions posed
• Discussion should include the following sections in sequence with the use of subheadings
  • Clinical discussion should illuminate how the clinical findings tie in with the diagnosis, addressing the typical and atypical case features. Authors are encouraged to highlight the clinical features that may alert the clinician to the diagnosis. In case of a rare disease, a brief description as well as diagnostic tests/criteria should be included. These may be tabulated. In the last paragraph, the outcomes of the case and the result of described intervention are useful.
  • Radiologic discussion should highlight specific findings from chest radiographs and CT, PET, and MR scans. Authors are encouraged to highlight findings that exclude diagnosis and elaborate on the use of particular modalities.
  • Pathologic discussion should highlight pathologic patterns of lung involvement that correspond to patterns seen on chest imaging, and the pathologic differential diagnosis of the disease under discussion should be presented. Special staining techniques that may allow the diagnosis to be established should be addressed.
• Conclusion: a bulleted list (3-4 lines at the most) of the take home message from the case for clinicians is encouraged.
• Image Quality Considerations
  1. Sizing: Images should be appropriately sized to minimize superfluous information—including, in particular, any surrounding structures outside the body.
  2. Labeling/Figure legends: Legends should include baseline information: slice thickness (in mm), orientation (axial, coronal), and reconstruction algorithm (in the case of lung, either "smooth" or "edge enhanced" or their equivalent). For contrast-enhanced pulmonary artery studies, provide the rate, timing, volume, and type of contrast as appropriate.
  3. Additional Imaging techniques: of particular interest is the addition of "movie" files (AVI or equivalent) when these augment image interpretation (eg, cardiac, aortic, or general vascular cases).
  4. The inclusion of other standard imaging formats, such as volumetrically rendered images and maximum (MIPS) and minimum (MinIPS) projection images, can be helpful.

Letter to the Editor, Response to Letter to Editor

The Letter to the Editor section publishes letters that raise questions about the methods and/or interpretation of studies published in AKJ. It is up to the discretion of the Editor in Chief whether any Correspondence is sent for external peer review and whether to accept any letter for publication.

Commenting on Recent Articles

All letters commenting on previous articles should strive to provide constructive and respectful comments of the original work. Letters should pertain to articles published within the preceding 6 weeks. Any correspondence discussing recent AKJ articles should include a short original title that does not duplicate the title of the article. Authors should include the full citation of the complete article in the reference list. For letters responding to articles published to the Online First section, AKJ will hold publication until the final version of the article is published in a numbered issue of AKJ. All accepted letters will be sent to the corresponding author of the original article with an invitation to submit a response for publication.

Response Letters

Authors are asked to submit all replies to letters on their work within 2 weeks of receiving the invitation. If they do not respond within this time frame, the original letter will be published without a response. Authors should never correspond directly with the authors of correspondence. The replying author should also include the full reference to their original work and should submit the same conflict of interest information relevant to the original work. AKJ  reserves the right to update the conflict of interest line in this regard as needed.

Manuscript Types Papers that exceed the length limitations as described in this guide will not be considered for review. Original (Clinical Research) Articles: Scientific reports of the results of original clinical research. The text is limited to 5000 words including the title page, abstract, text, references, and tables. Abstracts are limited to 250 words. Original (Public Health Research) Articles: original research, including evaluations of public health interventions or programmes, and public health practice original work on audit, workforce or resource development. The text is limited to 5000 words including the title page, abstract, text, references, and tables. Abstracts are limited to 250 words. Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses: The review should be less than 5000 words (not including abstract, references, and tables). There should be a structured abstract of up to 300 words (using the headings: Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions). There should be upto 5 keywords and up to 40 references. Review Articles: A timely, in-depth and detailed review and discussion of a particular health issue, medical problem or disease. Review articles are generally solicited by the editors. EJCS would on case-by-case basis but unsolicited materials will be considered. Review articles must be no longer than 5000 words including title page, abstract (no more than 250 words), text, tables, and references. Clinical case/Short reports: Short reports follow the same format as original articles. However, the short reports should contain less than 1200 words, and also maximum one table or figure. Abstracts are required with short reports, but should not be structured, and be no longer than 100 words. Maximum number of allowed references is 10 per each short report. Editorials: Opinions of recognized leaders in various fields of medical and public health specialties. Editorials are usually solicited by the Editor-in-Chief and in some circumstances by section editors and are related to a manuscript in the same issue. Length should not exceed 1500 words with no more than 15 references. Commentaries: Presents a point of view of general interest not related to an article in the same issue of EJCS issue. Letter to editor. Letters to the Editor discuss a specific publication by the Eurasian Journal of Clinical Sciences and have a word limit of 800. Permissions Use of previously published or copyrighted material Information obtained and used from another source must be properly cited. The submitting author is responsible for obtaining written permission from the appropriate authors and/or copyright holders to use previously published or copyrighted material. Signed permission statements from the authors or copyright holders of original text or information shall be sent to the EJCS's Editorial Office along with manuscript submission. Authorship by Residents and Fellows Medical students, residents, and fellows may submit articles and may be listed as first author. However, UIMJ policy requires that a senior physician has provided mentoring support to the student, resident or fellow. This senior physician(s) shall be listed as a coauthor. REVIEW PROCESS Editorial and Peer Review All submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by the Editor-in-Chief for quality, novelty, scientific importance, and relevance to the journal's general audience. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication or those that are outside the scope of the journal are rejected promptly. Manuscripts considered relevant are sent to Section Editors. Only these manuscripts will be reviewed by experts in the field. The Section Editors select the external peer reviewers and make the final decisions on manuscripts. EJCS employs a double-blind review process in which peer reviewer and author identities are kept confidential. The existence of a manuscript under review is not revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff. Peer reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review and must not divulge any information about a specific manuscript or its content to any third party without prior permission from the journal editors. All authors are sent notification of the receipt of manuscripts and editorial decisions made, by e-mail. Fast-Track Review In some case EJCS's Editor can expedite a review of a paper. The need for expedited or fast-track review shall be indicated in the cover letter with reason explained. Only manuscripts that deserve rapid review and publication will be fast-tracked by Editor-in-Chief. Appeal Requests Authors who wish to request reconsideration of a rejected manuscript should contact the Editorial Office at [email protected]. Requests must include the manuscript ID (EJCS-2017-0059) and a detailed description of why the authors believe the paper should be reconsidered. If the appeal is allowed, instructions will be provided on how to resubmit your paper. Submissions from Editors EJCS works hard to ensure that any submission from the Editor-in-Chief or a member of the journal’s Editorial Board receives an objective evaluation. This is achieved by assigning any submitted manuscript from the Editor-in-Chief or an Editorial Board member to an impartial Section Editor who can maintain the integrity of the review process. In most cases, EJCS invites the External Guest Editors. Embargo Policy Once your manuscript is submitted to EJCS, it is immediately embargoed from being presented or discussed elsewhere until one week before the publication date. Authors who discuss their work with the media in violation of above requirements must ensure that the media representatives know the embargo policy and the embargo date. Authors can participate in scientific conferences prior to publication of their article in EJCS if their paper is in press (accepted and sent to production). Author guidelines for discussing articles at scientific conferences: No article title and details shall be given out. However, it is allowed to discuss the findings and results of the work in general terms. A figure or table from submitted manuscript may be shown during the presentation. The copies of the manuscript, tables, or figures can not distributed. If an embargo break is the result of any action by an author, the author risks withdrawal of publication of the manuscript.