JAMA Dermatology—The Year in Review, 2019 | Dermatology | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Views 3,256
Citations 0
March 25, 2020

JAMA Dermatology—The Year in Review, 2019

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco
  • 2Editor, JAMA Dermatology
JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(5):491-492. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4076

JAMA Dermatology continued to thrive in 2019, maintaining an impact factor of 7.99 and our high rank among all dermatology journals. Manuscript submissions rose; the journal received 2942 submissions in the past year, an increase from 2584 in 2018 and 2153 in the prior year (Table). In 2019, 1259 of 2942 submissions (42.8%) were reports of research, including Original Investigations, Brief Reports, and Research Letters. A total of 9% of submissions overall were accepted, reduced from a 14% acceptance rate during the previous year. Reducing the time to publication continues to be an ongoing priority and area for improvement for the journal, with a median reviewer turnaround time of 9 days, median receipt to rejection time of 4 days, and median time from acceptance to publication of 75 days. The editorial leadership team continues to strive to find ways to improve the authors’ experience to ensure authors the fastest and best publication of their work.

Table.  JAMA Dermatology Statistics for 2019
JAMA Dermatology Statistics for 2019

The journal continued to have broad digital reach, with 4.4 million full-text views and PDF downloads in the past year, and connecting with a growing number of followers (more than 51 000) on social media channels Twitter and Facebook. JAMA Dermatology was pleased to be involved in the JAMA Network’s arrival on Instagram (@jamanetwork), as we predict that our visual-based content will thrive in that space. The journal received 3700 media mentions this year, another important indicator of the journal’s success. Three JAMA Dermatology articles were among the Altmetric top-scoring dermatology articles in 2019, including 2 Original Investigations titled “Association Between Surgical Skin Markings in Dermoscopic Images and Diagnostic Performance of a Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Network for Melanoma Recognition”1 and “Association of Vitamin A Intake With Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Risk in the United States”2 as well as an Editorial titled “Natural Does Not Mean Safe—The Dirt on Clean Beauty Products.”3 The popularity of the first study is striking, as it is a highly technical computational article. What is the significance of this well-deserved attention? Machine learning is undoubtedly here to stay and likely in time will be a valuable commonplace tool to augment our abilities to provide expert care for cutaneous disease. This work by Winkler et al1 highlights that it is essential to rigorously evaluate the algorithms used to train machines to detect skin lesions in images, as seemingly innocuous elements—in this case surgical pen markings intended to identify a skin lesion of concern—may significantly depreciate the computer’s accuracy. Improved understanding of when machine learning can improve or impede clinical practice, as well as the road to achieving this improved understanding, is thoughtfully discussed in the accompanying Editorial.4

It is a journal priority to feature important research that informs and changes the clinical practice of dermatologists. In 2019, new information about adverse psychiatric effects of isotretinoin,5 the use of novel agents for common diseases, such as atopic dermatitis,6,7 strategies to predict clinical response to medications, including an early foray into personalized medicine in dermatology8 and opioid use in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa9 were featured. The journal also highlighted vital self-reflections for our specialty, such as antibiotic stewardship,10 quality improvement,11 the use of Mohs micrographic surgery for invasive melanoma,12 and the rapid rise of private equity acquisition of dermatology practices.13

Over the past year, there have been several transitions in editorial leadership:

  • Appointment of Adewole Adamson, MD, MPP, to the position of Associate Editor. He continues to serve as our Web Editor and JAMA Dermatology podcast host.

  • Appointment of Anna Bruckner, MD, MSCS, and Kenneth Katz, MD, MSc, MSCE, as co–Deputy Editors.

  • Appointment of Gurbir Dhadwal, MD, and M. Ramam, MD, MBBS, as new members of our international advisory committee.

  • Many thanks to Misha Rosenbach, MD, for his service as our most recent Deputy Editor and April Armstrong, MD, MPH, for her service as an Associate Editor. Both will continue to serve as editorial board members.

JAMA Dermatology features the best educational content in dermatology, including monthly clinical review articles to ensure that our readers have high-yield summaries of scientific evidence relevant to their clinical practice. In the upcoming year, the journal aims to have a consistent journal presence at clinical and scientific meetings to look for the very best research and to connect with current and potential authors. The journal will continue its partnership with the American Board of Dermatology to offer access to selected journal articles for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) as part of the now active Certlink program. Knowing that many learning styles exist among dermatologists, educational content will be offered in a variety of forms, including now monthly author interview podcast featuring Adamson, whose brilliant interviews were heard by more than 51 000 listeners over the past year.

The editorial leadership team continues its firm commitment to providing excellent, relevant content to its readers. Achieving this mission is only possible through the efforts and feedback of dedicated peer reviewers,14 editors, editorial board members, JAMA Network colleagues, and our readers. Reviewers offer critical feedback on the framing of new research so that it is clear and useful to our readership. Readers also provide valuable feedback through their Letters to the Editor, which spark meaningful discourse with article authors, expertly handled by Letters/Observations Editor Claudia Hernandez, MD. The journal is indebted to our superb editorial manager and team member Constance “Connie” Murphy for her close support and collaboration on daily journal operations. Connie’s attention to detail and commitment to helping authors makes the author experience efficient and personalized.

Last, but not least, this year the journal celebrates an important milestone: the 100th year of the journal’s status as a publication of the American Medical Association.15 It is a tremendous honor to be part of the JAMA Network and collaborate with this group toward editorial and publishing excellence and innovation. The journal also celebrates its 138th year of continuous publication as a journal, with enthusiasm and intent to be an enduring resource of key clinical information and perspectives for dermatologists worldwide.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Kanade Shinkai, MD, PhD, Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, 1701 Divisadero St, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94115 (kanade.shinkai@jamanetwork.org).

Published Online: March 25, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4076

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Winkler  JK, Fink  C, Toberer  F,  et al.  Association between surgical skin markings in dermoscopic images and diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for melanoma recognition.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(10):1135-1141. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1735PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Kim  J, Park  MK, Li  WQ, Qureshi  AA, Cho  E.  Association of vitamin A intake with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma risk in the United States.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(11):1260-1268. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1937PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rubin  CB, Brod  B.  Natural does not mean safe—the dirt on clean beauty products.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(12):1344-1345. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2724PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Novoa  RA, Gevaert  O, Ko  JM.  Marking the path toward artificial intelligence-based image classification in dermatology.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(10):1105-1106. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1633PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Singer  S, Tkachenko  E, Sharma  P, Barbieri  JS, Mostaghimi  A.  Psychiatric adverse events in patients taking isotretinoin as reported in a Food and Drug Administration database from 1997 to 2017.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(10):1162-1166. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1416PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Worm  M, Simpson  EL, Thaçi  D,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of multiple dupilumab dose regimens after initial successful treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;156(2):131-143. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3617PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Gooderham  MJ, Forman  SB, Bissonnette  R,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor abrocitinib for patients with atopic dermatitis: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(12):1371-1379. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2855PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Tsakok  T, Wilson  N, Dand  N,  et al; British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) Study Group and the Psoriasis Stratification to Optimise Relevant Therapy (PSORT) Consortium.  Association of serum ustekinumab levels with clinical response in psoriasis.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(11):1235-1243. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1783PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Reddy  S, Orenstein  LAV, Strunk  A, Garg  A.  Incidence of long-term opioid use among opioid-naive patients with hidradenitis suppurativa in the United States.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(11):1284-1290. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2610PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Barbieri  JS, Bhate  K, Hartnett  KP, Fleming-Dutra  KE, Margolis  DJ.  Trends in oral antibiotic prescription in dermatology, 2008 to 2016.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(3):290-297. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.4944PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Albertini  JG, Wang  P, Fahim  C,  et al.  Evaluation of a peer-to-peer data transparency intervention for Mohs micrographic surgery overuse.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(8):906-913. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1259PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Miller  CJ, Giordano  CN, Higgins  HW  II.  Mohs micrographic surgery for melanoma: as use increases, so does the need for best practices.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(11):1225-1226. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.2589PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Tan  S, Seiger  K, Renehan  P, Mostaghimi  A.  Trends in private equity acquisition of dermatology practices in the United States.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(9):1013-1021. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1634PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
 JAMA Dermatology peer reviewers in 2019.   JAMA Dermatol. Published online March 25, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.0133Google Scholar
Shinkai  K, Bauchner  H.  Celebrating the 100th anniversary of JAMA Dermatology as a publication of the American Medical Association, 1920 to 2020.   JAMA Dermatol. Published online January 8, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3776PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words