Encrypted | Login

Medical Physics Editorial Procedures and Guidelines

Policy number Policy name Policy date Sunset date
MP 2-A Standard Operating Procedure for proffered and invited submissions of Review Articles and Future of Medical Physics Articles 12/5/2015 12/31/2020
Policy source
Policy text
A Review Article is an authoritative review of a subject important to the field of Medical Physics. A Future of Medical Physics Article is an authoritative forward-looking projection of a subject important to the field of Medical Physics.

A review article proposal must contain the following TWO elements:

1. Rationale
This is an explanation as to why an article is called for at this time, and who should be writing it. It should include a brief literature review of the most important 5-10 references in the field.
It should address
  • Why is a review article on the current topic important?
  • Why is it timely?
  • Are there seminal papers and/or review articles in the field already?
  • Who are the most qualified referees?
  • Describe the authors’ background(s) and expertise on the proposed topic

2. Outline
An abstract of the proposed article along with a sufficiently detailed table of contents enabling the reviewers to determine what is covered and at what depth.

Assessment criteria for proposals of Review and Future of Medical Physics articles:

  • Should address a broad audience – should be accessible to a non-specialist as an introduction to the topic, amenable to being presented as a lecture, brings the reader to the current state of the art and identifies the major thrusts for future work.
  • Should be based on peer reviewed published work but should add up to more than the sum of the parts
  • A Future of Medical Physics Article in addition should bring a new and personal approach to the field or propose an entirely new field of endeavor
  • Should be Inclusive – should bring into discussion previously disparate concepts
  • Should be Authoritative should be consensus based but selective and critical

Criteria for Article topics

For an emerging field without an existing Review Article
  • Should be a catalyst for the emergence of a new line of thinking which is otherwise fragmented.

For an established sub-field which has existing authoritative Review Article(s), authors must present a compelling case for the novelty and need for a new review vehicle. Valid grounds include
  • Existing material is dated, incomplete or confused
  • Existing material incomplete or confused
  • Existing material too specialised and/or inaccessible to Medical Physics readers
  • Existing material does not contain sufficient Medical Physics relevant material with either Clinical or Research focus.
Can be in areas of Medical Physics more broadly defined (i.e. currently outside those normally covered in the Journal) so as to bring new readers to the journal.

Return to Medical Physics Editorial Procedures and Guidelines