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

Robert M. Golub, MD

JAMA. 2008;300(1):98-99.

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

Letters entertain you, letters make you smile. But they also perform a very important and serious function, providing a forum for the scientific interaction between JAMA’s authors and its readers. The peer review system, which is the foundation for evaluating medical studies, includes multiway dialogues among authors, editors, and expert peer reviewers in an iterative process that results in evolution and refinement of a manuscript, ultimately leading to publication. However, the process does not end at this point—postpublication peer review is an integral part of the system and for JAMA this is manifest in Letters to the Editor.

This issue of JAMA contains a set of letters¹ that exemplifies this process. It consists of a number of letters sent in response to a companion set of clinical trials on ventilation strategies for acute lung injury and an accompanying set of editorials.^2-5 The letters raise questions about . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Do’s

Author Affiliation: Dr Golub is Senior Editor, JAMA (robert.golub@jama-archives.org).

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