In all branches of magnetic resonance there is a rather wild proliferation of new acronyms. It was always like that and the thing is sometimes exaggerated and almost always frustrating, so I do not at all wonder that the referees try to reduce it. In the case of fMRS quite a few authors already used the abbreviation and it is on the road to being accepted, but for the moment it is still half way there. I, for one, would understand what you mean, but would not particularly appreciate the term.

I think that you have too options: Either replace the acronym with a longer but probably more descriptive verbose definition of what you are actually doing (you can then make an abbreviation of it just for the scope of your publication). Or, otherwise, collect a sample of refences to papers where the acronym has been already used and write to the Editor saying that, ok, you see the reviewer's point but there already appears to be a consensus on the acronym. In this case it would become the Editor's task to decide (most Editors like that :-))

Thanks a lot for your very constructive comment. To be honnest, i had not realized that the acronym for functional metabolic studies with MRS (fMRS) was already a problem.

Hello Nathalie Just!

While I agree that sometimes it feels like every time someone changes a TR they invent a new acronym for what they've done, I think fMRS has clear value, in analogy to the extremely well established fMRI. To ignore this connection would be deliberately obstinate. But, reviewers are allowed to be difficult if they want to be, and you then have to prove them wrong - so I'd agree with Stan Sykora - build a list of publications using the term (I would also point out the analogy to fMRI), and let the editor decide. Good luck!

(I am assuming you defined the acronym on first usage, right?)

Thanks Arthur...So did i obviously...I have no pbs for reviewers being difficult...But i think that fMrs has been around for a while already. A paper is not necessarily the place to address things that concern an entire community...

Hi Nathalie, I think the reviewer is being obstinate just for the sake of it here. While, it is true fMRS is just an extension of MRS, so fMRI is an extension of MRI, and they are all just extensions of NMR, and yet the differing terminologies are now well established.

It is also true the use of longitudinal MRS to measure metabolite changes has been done for years without the "functional" title (think 31P MRS metabolic studies, or 13C infusion studies, or even the early 1H MRS lactate studies), but I think the title fMRS is becoming more established - and does allow a differentiation between studies looking cross sectionally, or even at changes over very long time periods. Most 'fMRS' studies these days are aimed at detecting changes in metabolites across much shorter time periods (sometimes seconds) and for a range of different functional tasks and activations, and as a small but growing field, differentiation from the more traditional "Static" or "resting" MRS measures is likely warranted.

As for the statement that "The author uses jargon in regard to MRS that is not appreciated by wider MRS community." I'm not sure what wider community the reviewer sits in, but given that there have been sessions on functional MRS at ISMRM Spectroscopy workshops, at the ISMRM educational sessions at the yearly meeting, and symposia at other international conferences (British Neuroscience Association and Society for Biological Psychiatry being two I can name) I think the terminology is well on the way to being understood. As Stan and Arthur suggest citing these instances, as well as those papers that use the terminology would be a good start.

Perhaps another way to address this particular concern though is to point out that the reviewer is quite right that fMRS is just a subset of MRS, and for those in the MRS community there may be no need to differentiate, but as you hope your work is of interest to others outside the MRS community, the use of the fMRS terminology may help researchers from other fields better grasp that what you are doing is different. As the terminology fMRI is widely understood by more then just people who do MRI, you hope the term fMRS will likewise allow a wider interest in the use of MRS to measure brain function to develop.

Hope this helps.

(P.S. I have never had this problem when I use the term fMRS).

I would add that fMRS in comparisonto just MRS being used to monitor function (which I think is the reviewers point) is that fMRS implies a task challenge. Quantitative MRI measures function, but functional MRI has a task challenge. This is the component which is not well captured by the terminology but has been accepted for the imaging case.

Thanks Paul and Matthew for your comments.

The reviewer has a point and I also agree that there are too many acronyms... I am grateful to both of you for pointing out at the fact that fMRS is much more than just sticking a voxel onto an activated area of the brain and measuring...Yes, there is a task challenge...

This comment by this reviewer is only the top of the Iceberg and I wish we can continue debating on this technique to make it more "capturable".

Happy to continue discussing this, and different people will have different opinions. I also agree with Matthews Task Challenge distinction - which is a major component of most "fMRS" based studies.

Had a good chat about this with a colleague. One factor came up was the intended audience. Those coming from a neuroscience back get may well be more familiar with the "f" than the "mri" and so the analogy leap is more inuitive. Those from an purely MRS background may not even be aware fMRI exists and so the comparison leap is too large.