Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKorom, Martaen
dc.contributor.authorCamacho, M. Catalinaen
dc.contributor.authorFilippi, Courtney A.en
dc.contributor.authorLicandro, Roxaneen
dc.contributor.authorMoore, Lucille A.en
dc.contributor.authorDufford, Alexanderen
dc.contributor.authorZöllei, Lillaen
dc.contributor.authorGraham, Alice M.en
dc.contributor.authorSpann, Marisaen
dc.contributor.authorHowell, Brittany R.en
dc.contributor.authorShultz, Sarahen
dc.contributor.authorScheinost, Dustinen
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-25T18:18:46Zen
dc.date.available2022-01-25T18:18:46Zen
dc.date.issued2022-02-01en
dc.date.updated2022-01-25T18:18:41Zen
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en
dc.description.versionPublished versionen
dc.format.extentPages 101055en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier101055 (Article number)en
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101055en
dc.identifier.eissn1878-9307en
dc.identifier.issn1878-9293en
dc.identifier.orcidHowell, Brittany [0000-0002-5643-2326]en
dc.identifier.otherPMC8733260en
dc.identifier.otherS1878-9293(21)00144-4 (PII)en
dc.identifier.pmid34974250en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/107908en
dc.identifier.volume53en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherElsevieren
dc.relation.urihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34974250en
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 Internationalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectFIT’NGen
dc.subjectBabyen
dc.subjectBrain developmenten
dc.subjectMRI acquisitionen
dc.subjectMRI processingen
dc.subjectMRI safetyen
dc.subject1103 Clinical Sciencesen
dc.subject1109 Neurosciencesen
dc.subject1702 Cognitive Sciencesen
dc.titleDear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studiesen
dc.title.serialDevelopmental Cognitive Neuroscienceen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten
dc.type.otherJournal Articleen
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-12-26en
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Techen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/University Research Institutesen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/Faculty of Health Sciencesen
pubs.organisational-group/Virginia Tech/All T&R Facultyen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Dear reviewers Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies.pdf
Size:
3.61 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Download

Collections

All Faculty Deposits
Scholarly Works, Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC
Scholarly Works, Human Development and Family Science