Thomas H. Berquist's research while affiliated with University of Washington Seattle and other places
What is this page?
This page lists the scientific contributions of an author, who either does not have a ResearchGate profile, or has not yet added these contributions to their profile.
It was automatically created by ResearchGate to create a record of this author's body of work. We create such pages to advance our goal of creating and maintaining the most comprehensive scientific repository possible. In doing so, we process publicly available (personal) data relating to the author as a member of the scientific community.
If you're a ResearchGate member, you can follow this page to keep up with this author's work.
If you are this author, and you don't want us to display this page anymore, please let us know.
It was automatically created by ResearchGate to create a record of this author's body of work. We create such pages to advance our goal of creating and maintaining the most comprehensive scientific repository possible. In doing so, we process publicly available (personal) data relating to the author as a member of the scientific community.
If you're a ResearchGate member, you can follow this page to keep up with this author's work.
If you are this author, and you don't want us to display this page anymore, please let us know.
Publications (185)
PURPOSE/AIM
1. Introduce the technique of dual-energy CT (DECT) 2. Highlight the role of DECT in challenging diagnoses 3. Demonstrate improved tophus quantification by DECT
CONTENT ORGANIZATION
1. DECT a. Dual-energy acquisition b. Discrimination of urate from calcium c. 3-D model with color mapping and volume measurement 2. DECT in challenging di...
Citations
... In the high-cited journals, editors spent half of their time solving the potential misconduct issues, made mainly by the author [3]. The situation concerning journals with lower impact factors may be more challenging. ...
... The American Journal of Roentgenology has recently published its detection report, with 48% of the manuscripts scoring 20% or more in duplicated content. 14 Out of 1852 submissions received between 1 January and 31 December 2021, EHJ-CR has detected 50.5 and 88.7% of them scoring ≥30% and ≥20% in similarity checks, respectively ( Figure 2). When interpreting these data, it is essential to note that obligatory structured submission files such as CARE guidelines and references are part of the manuscript and thus significantly raise the overall score. ...
... The journal found later that major plagiarism could exist with an OSI of less than 25% when most of the duplicated material originated from a single source (Taylor 2017). In 2018, therefore, the journal supplemented their process to require further evaluation for manuscripts with an SMSI of 3% or higher (Berquist 2018). The journal tested 110 manuscripts to determine the optimal algorithm for alerting the editors to potential plagiarism by comparing a manual screening with iThenticate scores, including or excluding quotations and references, using only the highest SMSI and using a mean of the OSI and the highest SMSI (Taylor 2017). ...
... The dynamization of the "apparatus-limb" system within the limits of rigidity of fixation of at least 7 N*m/ hail should have a stimulating effect on the blood supply to the limb and the rate of corn formation. [6][7][8][9][10][11] However, in fact, when transferring treatment of patients to an outpatient regimen, it was not a decrease, but a significant increase in the duration of the fixation period, 5 which may be associated with a weakening of medical control over the fixation mode and with an excessive increase in the micromotion of bone fragments. ...
... 57 For example, many reviewers do not update their personal classifications and this further contributes to the randomness of the selection. A recent editorial, of the American Journal of Roentgenology, 28 stressed on the importance of reviewers keeping up with their current personal classifications and also journals periodically revising the available list of personal classifications and adding more of them to the system. Recently, Bianchi et al., 58 developed the F3-index in order to help identify reviewers more likely to perform the review. ...
... Approximately 2400 reviewers help AJR in the peer review process [6]. The optimal quality of a review by carefully selected reviewers and timely response to the reviewer invitation are essential components of a successful review process. ...
... Fraud in radiology research has occasionally been discussed in the literature [6][7][8][9][10]. ...
... 30 The page and specific line numbers (if the manuscript has them) of the part of the study we are referring to should be included. 56 This will help both the authors and the editor, who will later be able to judge whether the authors have resolved the problems in their manuscript once it has been revised. 4 The least useful reviewers' reports (both for the authors and the editor) are those of the type, ''Very good article, I recommend publishing'' or ''Interesting article'' and its opposite, ''Does not add anything new to the literature'' or a variant, ''Needs to improve discussion''. ...
... It is a process of receiving spoken messages and comprehending the meaning. Listening plays an important role in communication and in language acquisition Berquist, 2017;Nguyen & Newton, 2018). ...
... An often heard complaint among researchers is that the peer-review system is 'broken'. A considerable number of articles have appeared in various journals that question the process, and how it is employed [38][39][40][41]. Most of these articles have raised issues with the consistency of review, its definition, ethics, cost, and the speed of the process [9]. ...
