[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.150.215. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 2,741
Citations 0
Editorial
March 13, 2013

Thank You to JAMA Peer Reviewers and Authors

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Dr Bauchner (howard.bauchner@jamanetwork.org) is Editor in Chief and Dr Fontanarosa is Executive Editor, JAMA.

JAMA. 2013;309(10):1034. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.1885

In this issue of JAMA, we are publishing the names of the 3804 peer reviewers who reviewed manuscripts for JAMA in 2012.1 These reviewers provided clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise and represent virtually every medical discipline and every area of medical research. We extend our appreciation to each peer reviewer for providing thoughtful, rigorous, and helpful critiques of submitted manuscripts and for making important contributions to enhancing the scientific quality and clinical relevance of articles published in JAMA.

We also express our appreciation to all authors, including physician-scientists, medical researchers, clinical investigators, and all other authors, who submitted manuscripts to JAMA. The 6669 manuscripts submitted to JAMA in 2012 represent the highest annual volume of submissions; addressed nearly every aspect of biomedical research, clinical science, and health policy; and included major clinical trials, high-quality observational studies, rigorous systematic reviews, and thought-provoking and scholarly Viewpoints and Editorials. We extend our thanks to all authors for providing us with the opportunity to consider their work for publication.

Authors, reviewers, and readers will have noticed that JAMA is evolving, with innovative methods to enhance content delivery, novel features to better serve the informational needs of readers, creative new cover designs, and enhanced strategies to expedite review and publication of scientific articles. For instance, during the past 6 months we have continued to refine and enhance our new website, introduced a new structured abstract format,2 launched a new reader app,3 and expanded author audio releases and podcasts and JAMA video news releases, which reach an estimated 22 million television viewers each week.

We have continued to make every effort to ensure that we publish the highest-quality articles, as evidenced by our latest impact factor of 30. We have maintained and improved efficiency with peer review and editorial decision making and continued to reduce the time from receipt to publication, which will improve even further as more content is published “Online First” (Table). In addition, authors who submit manuscripts to JAMA now have the opportunity, at the time of manuscript submission, to select one of the JAMA Network journals to also evaluate their paper, in the event the manuscript is not accepted by JAMA, thereby enabling a prompt second evaluation of the manuscript by a high-quality specialty journal. This new submission process reinforces the concept of the evolving JAMA Network.

Table.JAMA Peer Reviewers, Manuscript Data, and Impact Factor, 2006-2012
Table.JAMA Peer Reviewers, Manuscript Data, and Impact Factor, 2006-2012
Table.JAMA Peer Reviewers, Manuscript Data, and Impact Factor, 2006-2012

As JAMA continues to work toward reaching our goal of being the leader in innovative ways to improve the delivery of scientific content, one fact remains constant—a journal is only as good as its authors and peer reviewers. We recognize and thank all peer reviewers and all authors for their contributions in making JAMA one of the world's most respected and influential medical journals. We look forward to the continued indispensible contributions of our peer reviewer consultants in enhancing the scientific quality and ensuring the integrity of articles published in JAMA, and we invite and encourage authors to consider JAMA as their journal of first choice for publication of their important papers.

Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and JAMA and not those of the American Medical Association.

REFERENCES
1.
 JAMA Peer Reviewers in 2012.  JAMA. 2013;309(10):1035-1049Article
2.
Bauchner H, Henry R, Golub RM. The restructuring of structured abstracts: adding a table in the results section.  JAMA. 2013;309(5):491-492PubMedArticle
3.
Bauchner H, Herron M, Gee P, Flanagin A, Easley TJ. The JAMA Network reader: a new web app for JAMA and the JAMA Network journals.  JAMA. 2013;309(9):928Article
×