European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 11, pp 4455–4460 | Cite as

How to write an original radiological research manuscript

  • Peter BannasEmail author
  • Scott B. Reeder


Many scientific manuscripts submitted for publication are limited by fundamental mistakes in their preparation, leading to rejection. We describe how to write a well-organized radiological research manuscript containing all of the important ingredients for effective communication of a hypothesis-driven scientific study in the context of medical imaging.

Key Points

Mistakes in the preparation of scientific manuscripts lead to rejection.

Scientific writing, like any important skill, can be learned.

A well-developed approach will improve the quality of scientific writing.

High-quality scientific writing is essential to communicate research results.

A well-organized manuscript effectively communicates a hypothesis-driven scientific study.


Manuscripts Medical writing Publication components Radiology Diagnostic imaging 



We thank Prof. Dr. Gerhard Adam and Ingrid Krause for their advice and critical reading of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Peter Bannas.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Bracco and GE.


The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Bracco and GE.

This study has received no funding.


  1. 1.
    Bannas P, Adam G, Bley TA (2013) Instructions for original radiological research manuscripts. Röfo 185:533–538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kliewer MA (2005) Writing it up: a step-by-step guide to publication for beginning investigators. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:591–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Radiology 226:24–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eyler WR (1980) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Radiology 135:239–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Equator nework: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. Available via
  6. 6.
    Korevaar DA, van Enst WA, Spijker R, Bossuyt PM, Hooft L (2014) Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD. Evid Based Med 19:47–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siegelman SS (1988) Advice to authors. Radiology 166:278–280CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korevaar DA, Wang J, van Enst WA et al (2015) Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: some improvements after 10 years of STARD. Radiology 274:781–789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laniado M (1996) How to present research data consistently in a scientific paper. Eur Radiol 6(Suppl 1):S16–S18Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chew FS (1991) Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR. AJR Am J Roentgenol 156:627–632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G (1998) Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 280:257–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cook R (2000) The writer's manual. Radcliffe Medical Press Ltd., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murray R (2005) Writing for academic journals. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Albarran JW, Scholes J (2005) How to get published: seven easy steps. Nurs Crit Care 10:72–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Whimster WF (1997) Biomedical Research: How to plan, publish and present it. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenfeldt FL, Dowling JT, Pepe S, Fullerton MJ (2000) How to write a paper for publication. Heart Lung Circ 9:82–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wells WA (2004) Me write pretty one day: how to write a good scientific paper. J Cell Biol 165:757–758CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bannas P, Kramer H, Hernando D et al (2015) Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of hepatic steatosis: Validation in ex vivo human livers. Hepatology 62:1444–1455CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bannas P, Jung C, Blanke P et al (2013) Severe aortic arch calcification depicted on chest radiography strongly suggests coronary artery calcification. Eur Radiol 23:2652–2657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sheiman R (2009) Writing an Original Research Manuscript: The Do's and Don'tsRSNA, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bashir MR, Sirlin CB, Reeder SB (2015) On confirmation bias in imaging research. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:1163–1164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anvari A, Halpern EF, Samir AE (2015) Statistics 101 for Radiologists. Radiographics 35:1789–1801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matosin N, Frank E, Engel M, Lum JS, Newell KA (2014) Negativity towards negative results: a discussion of the disconnect between scientific worth and scientific culture. Dis Model Mech 7:171–173CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear MedicineUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Medical PhysicsUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  6. 6.Department of MedicineUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  7. 7.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations