This Article  • References  • 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  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

George D. Lundberg, MD

JAMA. 1988;259(13):1947.

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

In Reply.

—I found Dr Hecht's note to be stimulating since it is at variance with virtually all of the other feedback we receive. Most readers tell us that the JAMA of recent years is the best it has ever been. As our regular readers know, we function under a key objective and ten critical objectives and grade ourselves constantly against these.¹ In addition, we regularly use about two dozen indicators to judge JAMA and our nine American Medical Association specialty journals. These indicators are as follows: domestic and foreign circulation and readership, advertising revenue, Science Citation Index scores, quality of editorial boards, number of manuscripts received, manuscript acceptance rates, number and types of editorial categories, number of pages, turnaround time to publication, print and electronic media attention, results of readership surveys and focus groups, published corrections rates, number and quality of peer reviewers, peer review of the journals . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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