Dear reviewers: Responses to common reviewer critiques about infant neuroimaging studies. (February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Korom, Marta; Camacho, M. Catalina; Filippi, Courtney A.; Licandro, Roxane; Moore, Lucille A.; Dufford, Alexander; Zöllei, Lilla; Graham, Alice M.; Spann, Marisa; Howell, Brittany; Shultz, Sarah; Scheinost, Dustin
• Is Part Of: Developmental cognitive neuroscience. Volume 53(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-02
• Subjects: Baby -- MRI safety -- MRI acquisition -- MRI processing -- Brain development -- FIT'NG; Cognitive neuroscience -- Periodicals; Developmental neurobiology -- Periodicals; Neuropsychology -- Periodicals; Neuropsychiatry -- Periodicals; 612.8233
• DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2021.101055
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1878-9293

Abstract

Abstract: 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. Highlights: 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.