 |
|
Information for JAMA Authors—2004
Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD;
Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2004;291:107-108.
This issue of THE JOURNAL includes the updated version of the Instructions for Authors1 to submit manuscripts for consideration for publication in JAMA. These instructions include detailed information about manuscript preparation and submission, as well as guidelines for preparing structured abstracts and for reporting various types of articles. However, authors may find it helpful to have several aspects of these instructions highlighted.
General Considerations. As an international, peer-reviewed, general medical journal, JAMA will consider original manuscripts on any topic that provide new information that advances medical science, enhances clinical practice, improves patient care, and helps THE JOURNAL meet its key objective "to promote the science and art of medicine and the betterment of the public health" and fulfill its critical objectives.2 All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by JAMA editors, and approximately half are sent for external peer review. In 2003, more than 5000 manuscripts were submitted for consideration for publication, and the acceptance rate for unsolicited papers was approximately 8%.
Accordingly, highest priority for publication is given to reports of original research that present important, potentially practice-changing findings and novel discoveries that are relevant and of interest for a multidisciplinary, general medical readership. In addition, research reports that have immediate and major clinical importance and public health urgency may qualify for evaluation using JAMA EXPRESS, wherein the primary manuscripts can undergo rapid, expedited review, and publication within 6 weeks of initial submission.3 A number of major studies, including the Women's Health Initiative Trial,4 the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT),5 and the Toronto SARS outbreak,6 were published as EXPRESS reports.
With the combination of competition for space in THE JOURNAL and respect for the limited time many clinicians have to read the medical literature, authors of all submitted manuscripts should strive to communicate their findings and key messages as completely, efficiently, and concisely as possible. Manuscripts reporting original research should not exceed 3000 words of text, and reviews and other articles should not exceed 3500 words of text.
In addition to these general considerations, authors may find it helpful to have clarification and explanation of several issues that frequently arise or generate questions for several types and categories of manuscripts. For additional information, authors are encouraged to contact the editorial staff directly before submitting potential manuscripts.
Randomized Trials. Large-scale, multicenter randomized controlled trials receive high priority for publication in JAMA. Authors of reports of randomized trials should follow the CONSORT guidelines,7 include the CONSORT flow diagram (showing progress of participants through the trial) as a figure in the manuscript, and submit the completed CONSORT checklist. Unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, the primary outcomes of the clinical trial generally should be reported based on data analysis using the intention-to-treat principle, including all randomized participants in the groups to which they were originally assigned. Methods used to account for and handle incomplete or missing observations and data (such as for patients who discontinue participation in the trial) should be clearly explained and justified. These might include assuming no change from baseline values or using prespecified approaches such as last observation carried forward or other imputation methods. Results of analyses based on only those patients who completed the trial (so-called "completers analyses") may be included, but generally should be reported as secondary analyses.
Observational Studies. Reports based on data from observational studies should be as timely and current as possible. For cohort studies, the date of final follow-up should be less than 3 to 5 years ago. Likewise, data used in cross-sectional studies should have been collected as recently as possible, but certainly less than 3 to 5 years ago. Studies that report data that have been collected more than 5 years ago should provide an explanation regarding the relevance of the information in light of current knowledge and medical practice. In addition, priority for observational studies will be in part based on cohort size, number of objective end points, completeness of follow-up, adjustment for likely confounding and interacting variables, and use of appropriate statistical methods.
Survey Research. Manuscripts reporting survey data, such as studies involving patients, clinicians, the public, or others, also should report data collected as recently as possible. Survey studies should have sufficient response rates and appropriate characterization of nonresponders to ensure that nonresponse bias does not threaten the validity of the findings. For most surveys, such as those conducted by telephone, personal interviews (eg, drawn from a sample of households), mail, or e-mail, authors are encouraged to report the survey outcome rates using standard definitions and metrics, as proposed by the American Association for Public Opinion Research.8 The article on cancer screening by Schwartz et al9 in this issue illustrates this approach for reporting survey outcome rates.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide rigorous, systematic, comprehensive, and critical assessments of the literature on a specific topic or research question. The methods for systematically searching the literature, selecting studies for inclusion, appraising the evidence, extracting the data, and synthesizing the evidence should be clearly specified in the Methods section of the article. Systematic reviews with conclusions and recommendations based directly on evidence are preferred over consensus statements, which ordinarily will not be published in THE JOURNAL.
Clinical Reviews. Clinical Review articles represent a new section of THE JOURNAL and are intended to provide practical reviews that address a specific question or issue that is relevant for clinical medicine. These reviews present a timely, evidence-based, balanced review of a focused, patient-oriented topic, with transparent description of evidence acquisition and a rigorous summary of available information such that the highest quality evidence receives the greatest emphasis. Clinical reviews also discuss controversial aspects and unresolved issues and provide authoritative perspectives on the clinical topic. Authors interested in submitting a Clinical Review manuscript should contact Michael S. Lauer, MD, the editor for this section, prior to manuscript preparation and submission.
Grand Rounds. Articles based on Grand Rounds presentations at academic medical centers may be suitable for consideration for the Grand Rounds section. These articles typically include a detailed case presentation, along with a state-of-the-art, evidence-based review by an authoritative clinician-scientist and should address topics that are of interest and relevance for a general medical readership. Written permission from any patients who are identifiable from descriptions or photographs is required. Authors interested in submitting a Grand Rounds manuscript should contact David S. Cooper, MD, the editor for this section, prior to manuscript preparation and submission.
Opinion Articles. Editorials are invited by the editorial staff and usually are solicited to accompany an article accepted for publication. Editorials are intended to provide context for the new findings, add clinical perspective, and wherever possible, suggest directions for the next steps in investigation. Editorials represent the views of the authors and also reflect the position of THE JOURNAL. Commentaries are usually unsolicited papers that may address virtually any important topic in medicine, public health, research, or health policy and generally are not linked to a specific article. Commentaries should be well-focused, scholarly, and clearly presented and should not exceed 1500 words of text and 20 references.
Access to Data and Role of the Sponsor. For all reports of original data, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, at least 1 author (eg, the principal investigator) must indicate that he or she "had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis."10 In addition, the specific role of the funding organization or study sponsor should be specified, including any involvement in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript for submission or publication, or other relevant activities. These aspects should be reported clearly and in detail and are published with each article to ensure transparency, accountability, and independence.
Overlapping Reports or Related Manuscripts. Whenever possible, closely related aspects of the same study should be reported as a single article rather than as several articles based on the same investigation or data set. At the time a manuscript is submitted for consideration for publication, authors must inform the editors about and must provide copies of other manuscripts they are involved with that are closely related, contain similar content, or use the same study data, and either have been published or are under consideration for publication elsewhere.
The Instructions for Authors in this issue and the additional information in this editorial are intended to facilitate the preparation and submission of manuscripts for consideration for publication. Later this year, a new Web-based system for manuscript submission and peer review will be in place so that the manuscript submission and evaluation processes can be even more efficient. Also, within the next few weeks, corresponding authors of accepted papers who include their e-mail addresses in their contact information will receive 25 free e-prints following publication of their article.
We look forward to continuing to have the opportunity to review high-quality manuscripts from authors who have previously published their work in THE JOURNAL and we welcome manuscripts from all authors and investigators on virtually any topic in medicine and health care.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
|
Corresponding Author and Reprints: Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610 (e-mail: Phil_Fontanarosa{at}jama-archives.org).
Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and THE JOURNAL and not those of the American Medical Association.
Author Affiliations: Dr Fontanarosa is Executive Deputy Editor and Dr DeAngelis is Editor-in-Chief, JAMA.
REFERENCES
|
1. Instructions for Authors. JAMA. 2004;291:125-131.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Key/critical objectives. JAMA. 2004;291:110.
3. Winker MA, Fontanarosa PB. JAMA-EXPRESS: rapid peer review and publication. JAMA. 1999;281:1754-1755.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:321-333.
FREE FULL TEXT
5. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288:2981-2997.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Booth CM, Matukas LM, Tomlinson GA, et al. Clinical features and short-term outcomes of 144 patients with SARS in the greater Toronto area. JAMA. 2003;289:2801-2809.
FREE FULL TEXT
7. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987-1991.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Arbor, Mich: American Association for Public Opinion Research; 2000. Available at: http://www.aapor.org.
9. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ Jr, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291:71-78.
FREE FULL TEXT
10. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A. Reporting financial conflicts of interest and relationships between investigators and research sponsors. JAMA. 2001;286:89-91.
FREE FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Instructions for Authors
JAMA 2006;295:103-111.
FULL TEXT
Instructions for Authors
JAMA 2005;294:119-127.
FULL TEXT
Instructions for Authors
JAMA 2005;293:1788-1796.
FULL TEXT
|
