A total of 159 participants from 29 countries provided fully completed questionnaires. Italy contributed the majority of responses (n = 21), followed by Romania (n = 18) and Turkey (n = 11). The geographical distribution of responses is shown in Fig. 2. Out of 159 participants, a total of 22 (13.8%), 35 (22%), 38 (23.9%), 37 (23.3%), 20 (12.6%) and 7 (4.4%) were first, second, third, fourth, fifth-year trainees and fellows, respectively. The majority of respondents worked at university hospitals (n = 128, 80.5%) compared to general hospitals (n = 31, 19.5%).

Map demonstrating the distribution of survey respondents across countries members of the ESR

Only 12/159 (7.5%) trainees had already been awarded a PhD degree, with seven obtaining the PhD before, two during and three after residency. Nearly half of the respondents had never published a PubMed-indexed manuscript (76/159, 47.8%), 62 (39%) had published 1–5 manuscripts, 12 (7.5%) had published 6–10 manuscripts, 4 (2.5%) had published 11–15 manuscripts, and 5 (3.1%) had published more than 15 PubMed-indexed manuscripts. The number of published manuscripts was significantly related to the possession of a PhD degree (p < 0.001) but did not show a statistically significant relationship with the type of hospital (p = 0.317, University vs General Hospital). The majority of participants had participated in clinical research 86/159 (54.1%), compared to 8/159 (5%) who participated in experimental, whereas 20/159 (12.6%) had participated in both research types.

Twenty-nine of the respondents (29.6%) indicated that publication of manuscripts is compulsory during residency. Importantly, the number of published papers was not significantly related to the requirement to publish (p = 0.775). Among those who published their papers during radiology training, most did so in the first or second year of residency (n = 26, 16.35% and n = 20, 12.58% participants, respectively), with the number decreasing in subsequent years (n = 7, 7, 1 and 2 for the third, fourth, fifth year, and subspecialty fellows, respectively).

Regarding training in statistics and research methodology, the majority 106 (66.67%) had received statistical training before residency during medical school or undergraduate studies. However, half of the participants 79 (49.69%) did not receive further statistical training during residency (Fig. 3A, B). Similar responses were obtained when participants were asked about training in research methodology (Fig. 3B, C).

Responses to questions related to statistical and research training. Graphs A–D present the responses to individual questions

Participants were also asked about their experience and guidance in writing manuscripts. Among respondents, 43 (27.04%) had published a manuscript as first authors followed by 33 (20.75%) participants who had a publication only as co-authors. Notably, 55 out of 159 (34.59%) respondents never had any guidance/training on how to read a paper and 58 out of 159 (36.48%) had never been encouraged to participate in any research. The majority expected at least occasional guidance (n = 76, 47.8%) and expressed a desire to be trained through various means, including local seminars, ESR courses, practical seminars, and hands-on courses (Fig. 4).

Responses to questions related to training on manuscript preparation and guidance during research. Graphs A–E present the responses to individual questions

Regarding the time spent in research, most trainees (124/159, 77.99%) were expected to undertake research in their free time. Most of them had worked after hours to carry out research at least a few times (47/159, 29.56%) or always (82/159, 51.57%). The majority of this research (133/159, 83.65%) was performed without any payment for these activities (Fig. 5). In addition, most of them had never participated in grant proposal preparation (107/159, 67.3%) and had never received any training to do so (139/159, 87.42%) (Fig. 6).

Responses to questions related to conditions when undertaking research. Graphs A–C present the responses to individual questions

Responses to questions related to grant proposal preparation and manuscript review. Graphs A–C present the responses to individual questions

When asked about the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on their research activities, half of the participants replied that it did not affect them (79/159, 49.69%), some claimed they were negatively affected (54/159, 33.96%) and a few reported a positive effect (26/159, 16.35%). For the majority of trainees, the pandemic did not affect their research plans (109/159, 73.15%) or their research training (115/159, 77.70%) (Supplementary Fig. 1).