This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Alert me on articles by topic

Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD; Richard M. Glass, MD

JAMA. 1999;281:1434-1435.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The Journal of the American Medical Association serves a variety of interrelated constituencies, including physicians and other health care professionals, authors and other biomedical researchers, peer reviewers, medical students, advertisers, the public media, and, ultimately, patients. Each year, THE JOURNAL publishes results from our editorial and peer review audit to provide information to help these groups and others gain understanding of our publication processes, and also to publicly recognize and thank our peer reviewer consultants.¹ This year, we provide additional information for 2 of the most important constituencies of THE JOURNAL: authors and readers.

Peer review is perhaps the most critical aspect of the scientific review process.² The editors of THE JOURNAL rely on peer reviewers for their objective appraisal of the scientific quality and merit of submitted manuscripts, and for their thoughtful comments and critique for improving the manuscript. We also . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Drs Fontanarosa and Glass are Interim Coeditors of JAMA.

RELATED ARTICLE

The JAMA 1998 Editorial Peer Review Audit
Elaine S. Williams
JAMA. 1999;281(15):1443-1456.
FULL TEXT