{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017202354006337708, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.223943661971831, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Authors and reviewers: Honesty and honor

Scientific progress depends upon honest investigation and open discussion. Medical journals play a gatekeeper role for honesty of investigation, as well as being a pathway for discussion. As editors of two of the ISMRM’s journals and Chair of the ISMRM Publication Committee, we rely on the honesty of two groups of individuals: authors and peer reviewers. We assume that the data presented are true and accurate. As scientists, this is our code of honor. How could we knowingly present information that is misleading or incorrect and have that misinformation alter patient care? This is a serious responsibility that we believe our authors overwhelmingly adhere to with the strictest professional standards. While the scientific process is designed to prove whether published ideas and results are repeatable in the hands of other scientists, the initial and perhaps most important stage of manuscript evaluation is the peer review process. As you know, during the peer review process as practiced by JMRI and Magn Reson Med, qualified referees are asked to evaluate and comment upon the submitted work. Both of our journals, as do most journals, ask for suggested reviewers and also if the author would prefer that we do not invite specific reviewers. The need for these questions stem from fields with narrow areas of expertise. For these specific areas, there has been a historical concern that only a limited group of reviewers have the necessary expertise. Relatedly, there has also been concern about conflicts of interest or direct competition between investigators, hence the question about excluded reviewers. Some hold the opinion that suggested reviewers are becoming increasingly important as our fields become more specialized. Others may believe that suggested reviewers are now less important as general concepts of inclusion criteria, model selection, image post-processing, sequence development, and statistical analysis have become basic scientific building blocks in our field. This discussion will continue, but is not the focus of this editorial. This journal had a recent episode where authors suggested reviewers who, after investigation, appear to be fraudulent because there is no record that they are working in the field, and yet returned extremely favorable and highly correlated reviews. Because all steps in the review process are carefully documented, this unfortunate incident was readily uncovered. The study was rejected and the ISMRM Publications Committee will severely sanction this author. However, upon researching this episode, several similar incidents have been previously described by the editors of other scientific journals. We believe this corruption of the review process is an egregious violation of scientific integrity. This goes to the core of our professional ethics, and thus shocked the authors of this editorial, and thus we would like to take this opportunity to remind our readership about their professional responsibilities in this area. We research and publish our results to improve health. This is among the highest professional callings. Our results will be used ultimately to understand and treat disease. This is a humbling responsibility that requires conscious attention. It also requires the strongest professional ethics. While ethical questions can be complex, organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) have carefully studied these questions and distilled and published online sets of guidelines and flowcharts that clearly outline ethical behavior by authors, reviewers, and editors. However, at a base level, we must trust that the authors and reviewers are acting with their best intentions. Our authors need to be continuously aware of the influence of their papers. Our reviewers need to be cognizant of their responsibility as gatekeepers. As editors we also have to be alert about the importance of selecting unbiased, well-qualified reviewers. And our authors have to consider with care, and with the highest ethics, suggestions about who should and who should not review their manuscripts. We will continue to believe the vast majority of our submitters uphold the highest ethical standards that we hold dearly, but unfortunately we will be forced to look with a more skeptical eye at reviewer suggestions.