The Questionnaire Concerning “Radiology”
1933; Radiological Society of North America; Volume: 20; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1148/20.2.148
ISSN1527-1315
Tópico(s)American Sports and Literature
ResumoHomeRadiologyVol. 20, No. 2 PreviousNext The Questionnaire Concerning “Radiology”Published Online:Feb 1 1933https://doi.org/10.1148/20.2.148MoreSectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookXLinked In AbstractPrevious to the St. Louis meeting of 1931, Dr. W. H. McGuffin, Chairman of the Publication Committee at that time, sent questionnaires to all subscribers of Radiology, submitting inquiries as follows: (1) “Are you favorably impressed with Radiology as it is to-day?” (2) “Have you any suggestions for the improvement of the Journal?”In Dr. McGuffin's report he stated that 50 per cent, or about 1,200, of those receiving the questionnaire responded; since then, about a hundred more replies have come in. So much for the response.Of the replies received by Dr. McGuffin, he stated that something over 95 per cent, or 1,140 out of 1,200, expressed satisfaction and stated over the signature of the reader that he was “favorably impressed.” This result is most gratifying and encouraging to all concerned; however, it is from the dissatisfied 5 per cent, or 60 out of 1.200 replies, that we look for helpful suggestions for improvement.Since the size of the Journal has been reduced during the last six months, we may consider that we have more than met the wishes of the 28 who said it was “too ponderous,” “getting too large,” etc., and advised us to “strive for quality rather than quantity.”Several thought thinner paper should be used, and even more advised a tougher cover paper, the foreign subscribers especially saying that both cover and mailing envelope should be more durable stock. One subscriber, who is a frequent contributor as well, “would like to see a Journal made up of reprints, fastened together with some kind of clip, so that they can be re-arranged.” So much for format.Three of the answers advised consolidation of Journals, and 20 made suggestions as to the writing of papers rather than to the publishing of them, the latter being the problem with which we are immediately concerned.The larger number of those making suggestions for improvement advise more clinical and less physical material, a large enough “minority report” to merit consideration. The Journal is committed to the publication of such papers as are read at the Society's Annual Meeting, and contributions, and we are guided by the expressed preference of our readers in the choice of the latter. In a large measure, abstracts of papers on physical subjects are being omitted, acting upon these suggestions.Nine of the replies advise diagnostic rather than therapeutic papers, but nine hardly balance with the thousand and more which make no such suggestion: “objection overruled.”Eleven suggest more illustrations and three desire better ones. One suggests an index, overlooking the fact that indexes had been published every six months to that date. Three suggest just such a Subject Index as is now in preparation. About an equal number wish more abstracts and fewer; necessity has compelled us to act upon the suggestion of the latter.Article HistoryPublished in print: Feb 1933 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByInflexibility and LeverageLifengGu, DirkHackbarth, TongLi2019 | SSRN Electronic JournalRecommended Articles RSNA Education Exhibits RSNA Case Collection Vol. 20, No. 2 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download
Referência(s)