Can you tell us a little bit about your paper that was published in CVIR Endovascular?

Healy: The case report I submitted describes a patient with chronic proctalgia, a condition which significantly impacted his quality of life. He underwent multiple treatments including opioids, nerve blocks and surgical intervention, but symptoms did not improve. When reviewed at a multi-disciplinary meeting, our senior author (Dr. Jeff McCann, Consultant IR at St Vincent’s University Hospital, Dublin) identified a rectal arterio-venous malformation (AVM) on CT, which was suspected to be the cause of the patient’s symptoms. Further review of prior imaging demonstrated progressive stenosis and ultimate occlusion of the outflow vein (inferior mesenteric vein), which coincided with the onset of symptoms. Intimal hyperplasia causing outflow vein stenosis/occlusion are associated with the development of symptomatology in AVMs. This AVM was successfully treated with embolisation using absolute alcohol, leading to resolution of the patient’s symptoms.

Communication of new technologies and short communications have always been the cornerstone of the growth of interventional radiology. Do you think there are currently enough easily accessible interventional radiology publication possibilities for case reports, short communications, technical notes etc.?

Healy: From my experience, it is quite challenging to publish case reports in IR, due to the limited number of suitable journals and high number of submissions. I believe that CVIR Endovascular has provided a much-needed addition to this space.

Open access is the future in scientific publishing. What is your experience with open access? Was your paper in CVIR Endovascular your first open access publication? How did you find the editorial handling experience?

Healy: I found the editorial process to be excellent on all occasions, with short waiting times, valuable comments from reviewers and fast publication once accepted. It was also very interesting to know the reviewer names! I hope that open access will continue to grow over the coming years. I believe that open access is best for our patients, since information can be rapidly and widely disseminated without a paywall barrier. This is important for me, since I believe that improving patient outcomes/experience is at the centre of everything an IR does, regardless of whether they are working in the angiographic lab or the research lab.

Impact factor is still an important scientific parameter in many institutions, although other parameters like citation index are becoming more important. How is this in your institution and what is your opinion about this?

Healy: No metric is perfect and I feel that many institutions place too much worth on these numbers. My institution does not focus overtly on any of these metrics. However, I am aware from discussions with international colleagues that impact factor is the most commonly used parameter for academic advancement. I feel that citation index is potentially a more accurate measure of a researcher’s contribution to the literature compared to impact factor, since it accounts for both the number of publications and citations that an individual researcher has achieved to date, rather than focusing on the ‘prestige’ of the journal they have published papers in. One drawback of citation index is that it is slow, since it typically takes a year or more for publications to accumulate citations.

In the shorter term, measuring digital attention (e.g. likes, mentions, shares, comments, bookmarks, traditional citations), using platforms such as Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) or Plum X, can give an early indication of the interest that is generated by an individual publication or preprint. However, many consider that these measurements are tracking the social impact more than the scientific impact of the publications, hence I feel that measuring digital attention should be considered complementary to impact factor, rather than a replacement.

Young scientists find it more and more difficult to get their first papers published. Do you think that CVIR Endovascular can play a role in alleviating the situation?

Healy: I agree that it is difficult for young scientists to get their first paper published. CVIR Endovascular provides excellent workshops which are opportunities for young researchers to learn and increase their chances of successful submissions. In addition, the reviewer forum is available for young scientists to learn this important skill in a stepwise manner.

Would you consider submitting your scientific work to CVIR Endovascular again and if so, why?

Healy: Certainly. The efficient editorial process and target audience make this one of the ideal journals for me to submit my work to in future.

Can you tell us a little bit about your paper that was published in CVIR Endovascular?

Mori: The classical two-step method for retrieving a central venous catheter fragment with inaccessible ends usually involves making a free end with a pigtail catheter and seizing it with a snare catheter. Our paper proposed a fast and easy alternative method, the "Pigtail through snare" technique, which passes a pigtail catheter through an opened snare loop in advance, pulls the free end into the snare loop with the pigtail catheter, and snares it immediately. With this method, you do not have to move the snare catheter because the free end falls into the snare loop automatically by pulling the pigtail catheter.

Communication of new technologies and short communications have always been the cornerstone of the growth of interventional radiology. Do you think there are currently enough easily accessible interventional radiology publication possibilities for case reports, short communications, technical notes etc.?

Mori: In recent years, a decreasing number of journals worldwide are accepting case reports, short communications, and technical notes due to the increased total number of submitted manuscripts. Thanks to CIRSE's launch of the open access journal CVIR Endovascular, we have more opportunities to share interesting case reports and tips, like our technical note in interventional radiology.

Impact factor is still an important scientific parameter in many institutions, although other parameters, like citation index, are becoming more important. How is this in your institution and what is your opinion about this?

Mori: At our institution, the impact factor is mainly used to evaluate the academic achievements of researchers, although recently the citation index of individual papers is also being evaluated. In my opinion, the citation index and other new metric parameters can be used to evaluate individual papers and to introduce attractive papers to readers.

Young scientists find it more and more difficult to get their first papers published. Do you think that CVIR Endovascular can play a role in alleviating the situation?

Mori: Since becoming a faculty member at the university hospital, I have recommended that young doctors aspiring to interventional radiology first write a case report. I tell them that writing a case report about the treatment of rare conditions and new procedural ideas will help other patients in the same situation worldwide. The aims and scope of CVIR Endovascular fit perfectly with this purpose and provide young interventional radiologists with an entrance to our community.

Would you consider submitting your scientific work to CVIR Endovascular again and if so, why?

Mori: Of course, I will. The main reason that I would submit my future work to CVIR Endovascular is that it is an open-access journal and can be read without imposing a financial burden on its readers. I believe that submitting papers to this journal will help more IR colleagues worldwide as well as the patients they treat.

Please tell us a little bit about your paper that was published in CVIR Endovascular?

Stewart: Our article reports our initial experience with using Hydropearl Microspheres for uterine artery embolization (UAE) for patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids. Although this embolic agent is approved for UAE and other embolization procedures, no clinical data on Hydropearl Microspheres for this indication had previously been published in the literature.

Communication of new technologies and short communications have always been the cornerstone of the growth of Interventional radiology. Do you think there are currently enough easily accessible Interventional radiology publication possibilities for case reports, short communications, technical notes etc.?

Stewart: As interventional radiology continues to develop as an independent medical specialty, the focus of research in the specialty should, appropriately, be on publishing high-quality, prospective clinical trials. However, there is still a need for publication of brief communications to describe unique cases or novel techniques. More publication options for these types of reports would be beneficial to both investigators and members of the IR community.

Open access is the future in scientific publishing. What is your experience with open access? Was your paper in CVIR Endovascular your first open access publication? How did you find the editorial handling experience?

Stewart: In my experience, open access journals are an excellent option for the publication of brief communications. Compared to other open access journals I have published with, I found the experience with CVIR Endovascular to be seamless, allowing our work to be available to readers in a timely fashion.

Young scientists find it more and more difficult to get their first papers published. Do you think that CVIR Endovascular can play a role in alleviating the situation?

Stewart: CVIR Endovascular can assist young scientists in quickly publishing their first articles. These young investigators could benefit from the seamless editorial process. Quick and easy publishing of results in CVIR Endovascular could also be advantageous for publishing preliminary data for young investigators pursuing grant funding.

Would you consider submitting your scientific work to CVIR Endovascular again and if so, why?

Stewart: Yes, I would certainly submit my work to CVIR Endovascular again. The wide number of types of articles accepted and ease of the publication process make it an appealing choice.