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?

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

JAMA. 2004;291:743.

	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 publishing the names of the 3693 peer reviewers who completed manuscript reviews for JAMA in 2003.¹ These scientific consultants, who represent every specialty and virtually every discipline in medicine, consistently provide scholarly critiques, thoughtful suggestions and recommendations, and insightful perspectives that we consider very seriously in our editorial evaluation of submitted manuscripts. We extend our sincere thanks to these dedicated reviewers for their indispensable contributions to THE JOURNAL.

Peer review is a critical element in the rigorous and efficient evaluation of manuscripts submitted for consideration for publication and contributes significantly to the quality and integrity of articles that appear in THE JOURNAL. In 2003, JAMA received 5064 manuscripts (an increase of approximately 10% compared with 4615 submissions in 2002). Each peer reviewer evaluated an average of 2 manuscripts, and the average turnaround time . . . [Full Text of this Article]

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE

JAMA Peer Reviewers for 2003
JAMA. 2004;291(6):751-764.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT