The trouble with spectroscopy papers

Radiology. 1991 Nov;181(2):344-50. doi: 10.1148/radiology.181.2.1924769.

Abstract

Writing a critique and guide for authors of clinical spectroscopy research papers is a likely way of ensuring that one never sees another of one's own papers published in this field. Nevertheless, it is disappointing, though perhaps predictable, that despite its historical foundations in quantitative spectroscopy, the field has its fair share of findings that are not so obviously reconciled. Here is the view of one author, one referee, and one spectroscopy protagonist about what might be expected of a clinical spectroscopy paper. In addition to novelty, the fundamental criteria for acceptance should be that the conclusions are supported by properly and objectively quantified results, and that sufficient experimental detail is provided so that one skilled in the art could reproduce the study and its findings.

Publication types

  • Duplicate Publication
  • Editorial

MeSH terms

  • Humans
  • Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy*
  • Publishing / standards*
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Research Design / standards*