Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.
Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101055
复制
发表时间：
2022-03
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Scheinost D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Korom M;Camacho MC;Filippi CA;Licandro R;Moore LA;Dufford A;Zöllei L;Graham AM;Spann M;Howell B;FIT’NG;Shultz S;Scheinost D
成人神经影像学领域依赖于研究设计、成像序列、处理流程以及安全和数据收集协议方面的既定原则。相比之下，婴儿磁共振成像领域是一个年轻的领域，具有巨大的科学潜力，但不断发展的标准。本文旨在发起建设性的对话研究人员谁与新生领域的挑战和固有的局限性和评论家谁评估他们的工作。我们解决了研究人员通常从研究伦理委员会，赠款和手稿评审员那里收到的20个问题，这些问题与婴儿神经成像数据收集，安全协议，研究计划，成像序列，与软件和硬件相关的决策以及数据处理和共享有关，同时承认该领域的成就和急需未来进步的领域。这篇文章反映了FIT'NG社区专家的累积知识，可以作为研究人员和评论者寻求更深入了解婴儿神经成像标准和权衡的资源。婴儿MRI领域是年轻的，标准不断发展。我们解决了研究人员经常收到的20个问题。这些来自研究伦理委员会，赠款和手稿审查。本文反映了FIT'NG社区专家的累积知识。
The field of adult neuroimaging relies on well-established principles in research design, imaging sequences, processing pipelines, as well as safety and data collection protocols. The field of infant magnetic resonance imaging, by comparison, is a young field with tremendous scientific potential but continuously evolving standards. The present article aims to initiate a constructive dialog between researchers who grapple with the challenges and inherent limitations of a nascent field and reviewers who evaluate their work. We address 20 questions that researchers commonly receive from research ethics boards, grant, and manuscript reviewers related to infant neuroimaging data collection, safety protocols, study planning, imaging sequences, decisions related to software and hardware, and data processing and sharing, while acknowledging both the accomplishments of the field and areas of much needed future advancements. This article reflects the cumulative knowledge of experts in the FIT’NG community and can act as a resource for both researchers and reviewers alike seeking a deeper understanding of the standards and tradeoffs involved in infant neuroimaging. The field of infant MRI is young with evolving standards. We address 20 questions that researchers commonly receive reviewers. These come from research ethics boards, grant, and manuscript reviewers. This article reflects the cumulative knowledge of experts in the FIT’NG community.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
15.1
作者：
Carney O;Hughes E;Tusor N;Dimitrova R;Arulkumaran S;Baruteau KP;Collado AE;Cordero-Grande L;Chew A;Falconer S;Allsop JM;Rueckert D;Hajnal J;Edwards AD;Rutherford M
通讯作者：
Rutherford M
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Arichi, Tomoki;Fagiolo, Gianlorenzo;Varela, Marta;Melendez-Calderon, Alejandro;Allievi, Alessandro;Merchant, Nazakat;Tusor, Nora;Counsell, Serena J.;Burdet, Etienne;Beckmann, Christian F.;Edwards, A. David
通讯作者：
Edwards, A. David
影响因子：
9.8
作者：
Biagi L;Crespi SA;Tosetti M;Morrone MC
通讯作者：
Morrone MC
影响因子：
2.5
作者：
Anderson, AW;Marois, R;Ment, LR
通讯作者：
Ment, LR
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Carmody, DP;Dunn, SM;Lewis, M
通讯作者：
Lewis, M