This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • 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  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD; Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2003;289:756.

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

In this issue of THE JOURNAL, we are pleased to publish the names of the 3443 peer reviewers who completed manuscript reviews for JAMA in 2002.¹ These consultants, who represent virtually every medical discipline, provide scholarly critiques, thoughtful recommendations and suggestions, and insightful advice that we take very seriously and consider essential in our editorial assessment of submitted papers. In 2002, each peer reviewer evaluated an average of 2 manuscripts, and the average turnaround time was 21 days. We extend our gratitude to these consultants for their indispensable contributions in helping to maintain and enhance the quality and scientific integrity of articles published in THE JOURNAL.

We also extend our appreciation to the physicians, medical researchers, clinical investigators, and other authors who submitted manuscripts for consideration for publication in THE JOURNAL. We are grateful that authors of medical research reports and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliations: Dr Fontanarosa is Executive Deputy Editor and Dr DeAngelis is Editor, JAMA.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

The JAMA Peer Review Report for 2002
Elaine Williams
JAMA. 2003;289(6):763-776.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT