 |
|
Thank You, JAMA Peer Reviewers and Authors
Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH;
Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA
JAMA. 2006;295:1171-1172.
In this issue of JAMA, we are publishing the names of the 3537 peer reviewers who completed manuscript reviews for JAMA in 2005.1 We extend our sincere thanks to these dedicated reviewers, who represent virtually every discipline in biomedical science and nearly 40 countries, for their rigorous critiques and thoughtful recommendations in helping to ensure the scientific quality of articles published in JAMA.
We also appreciate the efforts of these reviewers in alerting us about ethical issues involving some submitted papers, such as several instances of duplicate submission, duplicate publication, plagiarism, and concerns about research or data integrity. Identification of these concerns is an indispensable aspect of the peer review process and is essential to maintain the scientific integrity and highest ethical standards for articles published in JAMA. We take pride in having the most stringent requirements for full disclosure of conflicts of interest, for reporting of the role of sponsors in research papers, and for insisting on oversight for aspects of studies (such as data access and statistical analysis) that might lend themselves to manipulation.2 While there is no guarantee that these measures ensure scientific honesty, we continue to seek better ways to improve this process and JAMA peer reviewers provide invaluable input in helping us to do so.
We also extend our sincere appreciation to all authors who submitted manuscripts for consideration for publication in JAMA. These authors provide JAMA readers with important, innovative, and interesting papers that span the entire spectrum of medicine, from practice-changing major clinical trials and cutting-edge scientific discoveries to practical review articles on common clinical topics and scholarly commentaries on health policy issues. The diversity of topics is shown in the "top 25" articles that were published in 2005 and were accessed most frequently from the JAMA Web site.3 In addition, authors who submit papers to JAMA reflect the international nature of medical research; in 2005, 37% of manuscripts were submitted from authors outside the United States and represented 81 different countries. We are grateful to the many physician-scientists, medical researchers, clinical investigators, and other authors of medical research reports and other manuscripts who entrust JAMA with their important work.
The rigorous nature and timeliness of the peer review process and the quality of papers submitted to JAMA are reflected in several key measures (Table). Over the past 5 years, JAMA's impact factor4 has continued to increase steadily; for 2004, the latest available value, our impact factor was 24.8. In addition, with full implementation of our Web-based system for manuscript submission and peer review in early 2005, the turnaround times for editorial decisions have continued to decrease. For instance, the mean time for reviewers to complete their reviews decreased from 26 days in 2004 to 13 days (median, 12 days) in 2005. Moreover, the overall mean publication time, ie, from manuscript submission to publication, is now 115 days (median, 110 days). With an increased number of submitted papers, the overall acceptance rate (including solicited papers, such as editorials and commentaries) has declined to approximately 8%. However, for submitted papers of good quality that cannot be published in JAMA, authors may be given the option of having their paper (along with the peer reviews) referred to one of our family of ARCHIVES specialty journals for further consideration.
|
|
|
|
Table. JAMA Peer Reviewers, Manuscript Timelines, and Impact Factor, 1999-2005
|
|
|
We make every effort to ensure that articles published in JAMA continue to advance medical science, enhance clinical knowledge, and reflect the highest ethical standards of medical journalism. We sincerely appreciate the contributions of all JAMA peer reviewers and all JAMA authors in helping us achieve these important goals.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and JAMA and not those of the American Medical Association.
Author Affiliations: Dr DeAngelis is Editor-in-Chief and Dr Fontanarosa is Executive Deputy Editor, JAMA.
REFERENCES
1. JAMA peer reviewers in 2005. JAMA. 2006;295:1175-1188.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Fontanarosa PB, Flanagin A, DeAngelis CD. Reporting conflicts of interest, financial aspects of research, and role of sponsors in funded studies. JAMA. 2005;294:110-111.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Top 25 articles published in 2005 [JAMA Web site]. Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/misc/top25.dtl. Accessibility verified February 15, 2006.4. Journal Citation Reports: 2004 JCR Science Edition. Philadelphia, Pa: Thomson Scientific; 2005. Available at: http://portal.isiknowledge.com. Accessed February 16, 2006.
RELATED ARTICLE
JAMA Peer Reviewers in 2005
JAMA. 2006;295(10):1175-1188.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Response to Dr Gotzche and Dr Bjarnason
Bingham
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:1624-1625.
FULL TEXT
COX-2 inhibitor
Gotzsche and Bjarnason
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:1623-1624.
FULL TEXT
|
