Hubbry Logo
JAMAJAMAMain
Open search
JAMA
Community hub
JAMA
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
JAMA
JAMA
JAMA
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Journal of the American Medical Association
DisciplineMedicine
LanguageEnglish
Edited byKirsten Bibbins-Domingo
Publication details
Former names
Transactions of the American Medical Association; Journal of the American Medical Association
History1883–present
Publisher
Frequency48/year
Free access to research articles after six months
55.0 (2024)
Standard abbreviations
ISO 4JAMA
Indexing
CODENJAMAAP
ISSN0098-7484 (print)
1538-3598 (web)
LCCN82643544
OCLC no.1124917
Until 1960:
ISSN0002-9955
Links

JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) is a peer-reviewed medical journal published 48 times a year by the American Medical Association. It publishes original research, reviews, and editorials covering all aspects of biomedicine. The journal was established in 1883 with Nathan Smith Davis as the founding editor.[1] Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo of the University of California, San Francisco became the journal editor-in-chief on July 1, 2022, succeeding Howard Bauchner of Boston University.[2]

According to Journal Citation Reports, the journal's 2024 impact factor is 55.0, ranking it 4th out of 332 journals in the category "Medicine, General & Internal".[3]

History

[edit]

The journal was established in 1883 by the American Medical Association and superseded the Transactions of the American Medical Association.[4] In the late nineteenth century, medical journals closely resembled other kinds of journalism, and publishing in the journal was understood as a privilege of AMA membership.[5] Prior to the 1920s, the editor's main concern was with filling the journal, but between the 1910s and the mid 1920s JAMA entered the "turndown era," when submission volume was high enough to start rejecting submissions based on quality.[6] The journal did not institutionalize routine peer review until after World War II.[7] In 1960, the journal obtained its current title, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association.[8][9] The journal is commonly referred to as JAMA.

Continuing medical education

[edit]

Continuing Education Opportunities for Physicians was a semiannual journal section providing lists for regional or national levels of continuing medical education (CME). Between 1937 and 1955, the list was produced either quarterly or semiannually. Between 1955 and 1981, the list was available annually, as the number of CME offerings increased from 1,000 (1955) to 8,500 (1981). In 2016, CME transitioned into a digital offering from the JAMA Network called JN Learning CME & MOC from JAMA Network.[10] JN Learning provides CME and MOC credit from article and audio materials published within all 12 JAMA Network journals, including JAMA.

Publication of article by Barack Obama

[edit]

On 11 July 2016, JAMA published an article by Barack Obama entitled "United States Health Care Reform: Progress to Date and Next Steps",[11] which was the first academic paper ever published by a sitting U.S. president.[12] The article was not subject to blind peer-review. It argued for specific policies that future presidents could pursue in order to improve national health care reform implementation.[13]

Policy shift

[edit]

After the controversial 1999 firing[by whom?] of an editor-in-chief, George D. Lundberg, a process was put in place to ensure editorial freedom. A seven-member journal oversight committee was created to evaluate the editor-in-chief and to help ensure editorial independence. Since its inception, the committee has met at least once a year. Presently, JAMA policy states that article content should be attributed to authors, not to the publisher.[14][15][16][17]

Artwork

[edit]

From 1964 to 2013, JAMA used images of artwork on its cover and it published essays commenting on the artwork.[18] According to former editor George Lundberg, this practice was designed to link the humanities and medicine.[19] In 2013, a format redesign moved the art feature to an inside page, replacing an image of the artwork on the cover with a table of contents.[18] The purpose of the redesign was to standardize the appearance of all journals in the JAMA Network.[20] The arts feature was discontinued in 2024.

Racism controversy

[edit]

A February 2021 JAMA podcast proposed that "structural racism is an unfortunate term to describe a very real problem" and that "taking racism out of the conversation would help" to ensure "all people who lived in disadvantaged circumstances have equal opportunities to become successful and have better qualities of life."[21][22] A JAMA tweet wrote "No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?” [23][24] The comments were immediately criticized by some,[25] resulting in deletion of the podcast[26][27] and resignation of the Deputy Editor. On June 1, 2021, the editor-in-chief announced that he would resign effective June 30, 2021 to "create an opportunity for new leadership at JAMA."[28][26] Columnists Eric Zorn and Daniel Henninger asserted in separate Op-Eds that the resignation of the two editors was an unfortunate substitute for meaningful conversations about racism and health care,[29][30] and the episode was highlighted as a case study of social media, polarization, and radicalization in Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott's 2023 book The Canceling of the American Mind.[31]

Previous chief editors

[edit]

The following people have been editor-in-chief of JAMA:[32]

Journal ranking summary

[edit]

JAMA – Journal of the American Medical Association consistently ranks among the leading journals in the medical field. The table below outlines its recent citation-based performance across major indexing platforms.

Journal ranking summary (2023)[35]

Source Category Rank Percentile Quartile
Scopus General Medicine in Medicine 6/636 99.06 Q1
IF (Web of Science) Medicine, General & Internal 5/325 98.60 Q1
JCI (Web of Science) Medicine, General & Internal 4/329 98.78 Q1

Abstracting and indexing

[edit]

JAMA is abstracted and indexed in:

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

JAMA

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is a weekly peer-reviewed general published by the (AMA), featuring original research articles, reviews, editorials, and clinical guidelines across various medical disciplines. Established in , it has maintained continuous publication and evolved into a flagship outlet for high-impact medical scholarship, with an emphasis on evidence-based findings that influence clinical practice and policy. Boasting a 2024 of 55—placing it among the top medical journals—and a circulation exceeding 124,000, JAMA reaches a broad audience of physicians and researchers, contributing landmark studies on topics from to therapeutics. However, the journal has encountered notable controversies, including a 2021 questioning the primacy of structural in health disparities—which empirical analyses often attribute more substantially to socioeconomic and behavioral factors—prompting backlash, the resignation of its , and internal commitments to address perceived insensitivities amid broader institutional pressures in academia to prioritize certain ideological framings over data-driven causal attributions. These events highlight tensions in medical publishing between rigorous empirical scrutiny and prevailing narratives shaped by systemic biases in elite institutions.

History

Founding and Early Development (1883–1900)

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) was established by the (AMA) following a decision at its 34th annual session in , , from June 5 to 8, 1883, to create a weekly publication for the Association's proceedings and papers. The inaugural issue appeared on Saturday, July 14, 1883, as Volume 1, Number 1, comprising 32 pages that included minutes from the Cleveland meeting, presidential addresses, sectional reports, and early scientific contributions such as discussions on clinical topics and medical progress. Nathan Smith Davis Sr., a physician instrumental in the AMA's own founding in 1847 and its president in 1864, served as the first editor, overseeing the journal's launch to promote unified medical standards and disseminate research amid a fragmented profession. In its initial years, JAMA operated as a weekly periodical, superseding the AMA's prior Transactions volumes and expanding to feature original articles, editorials, society news, and reviews of medical literature, thereby centralizing communication for American physicians. Under Davis's editorship, which extended through the 1880s, the journal emphasized empirical reporting and professional reform, reflecting the AMA's goals of elevating medical education and practice during an era of rapid scientific advancement and varying state licensure standards. By the late 1880s, it had begun to assert influence as a primary venue for U.S. medical discourse, publishing content on topics from pulse-wave studies to obstetric practices, though it competed with established European journals and nascent specialty publications. Through the 1890s, JAMA's development aligned with the AMA's growth, incorporating more systematic peer input and addressing professional issues like and irregular practitioners, which helped solidify its role in standardizing American . Circulation details from this period remain sparse, but the journal's weekly format and affiliation with the expanding AMA—whose membership rose amid post-Civil War professionalization—facilitated broader reach among practitioners. By , JAMA had transitioned from a nascent outlet to a cornerstone of medical publishing, laying groundwork for its dominance in North American into the .

Expansion in the 20th Century

Under the editorship of George H. Simmons from 1899 to 1924, JAMA modernized its content by prioritizing rigorous scientific reporting and launching campaigns against medical and substandard practices, which bolstered its reputation and expanded its readership among physicians. Circulation, which stood at approximately 11,000 in 1898, grew steadily as the journal aligned with broader AMA efforts to standardize following the 1910 , reflecting the professionalization of American medicine. Morris Fishbein succeeded Simmons as editor in 1924 and served until 1949, guiding JAMA through a period of substantial expansion amid rapid advancements in medical science and challenges. Under Fishbein, the journal introduced regular features such as editorials critiquing , news sections on medical developments, and coverage of in medicine, elevating its role as the AMA's primary voice. This era saw JAMA become the world's largest-circulating , with its influence amplified by AMA revenue growth from under $10,000 annually in 1898 to $1,750,000 by 1946, much of which supported journal operations and wider dissemination. In the mid-20th century, particularly during and after , JAMA broadened its scope to include wartime medical innovations, such as articles on trauma care and , while maintaining weekly publication and increasing article volume to address postwar healthcare demands. Editors like Austin Smith (1949–1958) continued this trajectory, with the journal's prominence tied to AMA membership surpassing 150,000 by the 1950s, driving further circulation gains and establishing JAMA as a cornerstone for evidence-based discourse in an era of antibiotic discoveries and specialization.

Post-2000 Evolution and Digital Transition

In the early , JAMA built upon its initial foray into online full-text availability, established in September 1999, by enhancing digital features to support rapid dissemination of amid rising among clinicians and researchers. This period saw the integration of supplementary online materials, such as audio podcasts and video abstracts, beginning around , which allowed for richer multimedia accompaniment to print articles and addressed limitations of static formats. By prioritizing electronic supplements, JAMA adapted to showing that visual and auditory aids improved comprehension of complex studies, though varied due to bandwidth constraints in clinical settings at the time. A pivotal advancement occurred in April 2012 with the launch of The JAMA Network, a centralized digital platform that unified JAMA with its 10 specialty journals (previously the Archives series), enabling seamless cross-referencing, shared search functionalities, and improved metadata for algorithmic discoverability. This restructuring, completed with journal name changes effective January 1, 2013 (e.g., Archives of to JAMA ), facilitated mobile-responsive debuted in May 2012 and a dedicated app in 2013, reflecting data on increasing usage among physicians for on-the-go access. The platform's evolution continued with a comprehensive redesign in 2016, incorporating user analytics-driven features like "You May Also Like" recommendations and contextual article links to boost engagement and citation rates. Post-2012, JAMA accelerated its digital transition through online-first publishing, whereby accepted manuscripts appear digitally before print assignment, reducing time-to-publication from weeks to days and aligning with empirical demands for timely evidence in fast-evolving fields like and . This model, fully implemented by the mid-, supported the addition of open-access outlets such as in May 2018, which broadened reach while maintaining peer-review rigor, as evidenced by rapid growth in downloads and . Free access to content six months post-publication further democratized information, though subscription barriers persisted for immediate full-text, prompting critiques of equity in knowledge access amid global health disparities. These shifts correlated with JAMA's sustained high , averaging above 50 in the 2010s, underscoring digital tools' role in amplifying influence without diluting evidentiary standards.

Scope and Editorial Practices

Content Types and Publication Standards

JAMA publishes diverse content types categorized into research, clinical reviews and education, opinion, humanities, and correspondence, each with defined structural requirements, word limits, and reference caps to maintain conciseness and focus. Research articles include Original Investigations, which detail clinical trials, meta-analyses, cohort studies, and similar designs (maximum 3000 words, ≤5 tables/figures, 50-75 references, structured abstract ≤350 words with 3 Key Points box). Brief Reports cover shorter original studies or case series (maximum 1200 words, ≤3 tables/figures, ≤15 references), while Research Letters present concise findings (maximum 600 words, ≤2 tables/figures, ≤6 references, no abstract). Specialized research formats encompass Caring for the Critically Ill Patient articles on critical care topics, mirroring Original Investigation limits. Clinical review and education content synthesizes evidence for practitioners, featuring Systematic Reviews (without meta-analysis; maximum 3000 words, ≤5 tables/figures, 50-75 references, structured abstract, PRISMA flow diagram) and Narrative Reviews providing clinician updates (2000-3500 words, ≤5 tables/figures, 50-75 references, structured abstract). Special Communications address pivotal medical or public health issues (maximum 3000 words, ≤4 tables/figures, ≤50 references, structured abstract; presubmission inquiry required), alongside case-based formats like Clinical Challenge (maximum 850 words, ≤10 references, ≤3 authors, patient permission mandatory) and Diagnostic Test Interpretation (similar limits, presubmission inquiry required). Opinion pieces offer commentary, with Viewpoints on key topics (maximum 1200 words or 1000 with figure/table, ≤7 references, ≤4 authors) and Perspectives on clinical matters (maximum 2000 words, ≤25 references, ≤4 authors; presubmission inquiry required). Humanities contributions include A Piece of My Mind for personal vignettes (maximum 1600 words, ≤3 authors, patient permission if identifiable) and poetry reflecting medical experiences (≤44 lines, 1 author). Correspondence comprises Letters to the Editor debating recent articles (maximum 400 words, ≤5 references, ≤3 authors) and author Replies (maximum 500 words, ≤6 references, ≤3 authors). Publication standards prioritize originality, ethical integrity, and methodological rigor, requiring manuscripts to report unpublished, timely data not under consideration elsewhere, with adherence to ICMJE authorship criteria (substantial contribution, drafting/revision, final approval, accountability for accuracy). All authors submit forms disclosing conflicts, and limits on author numbers vary by type (e.g., ≤3 for Brief Reports). is single-anonymized, involving assessment and external experts, with authors encouraged to address prior reviewer feedback for efficiency. Reporting follows EQUATOR Network guidelines, mandating CONSORT for randomized trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, and STROBE for observational studies to enhance transparency and minimize bias; structured abstracts are required for research and reviews, often with Key Points summarizing findings, evidence strength, and clinical implications. Ethical mandates include approval or waiver for human studies, documentation, and patient permissions for identifiable cases, prohibiting fictional or composite accounts. statements and sex/ analysis reporting are enforced to promote , while dual-use research of concern undergoes additional scrutiny.

Role in Continuing Medical Education

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as part of the JAMA Network published by the (AMA), plays a significant role in delivering accredited (CME) activities designed to support physicians' lifelong learning and compliance with licensure requirements. Through the JN Learning platform, JAMA provides access to over 1,700 CME opportunities, including journal-based learning modules derived from its articles, audio interviews, video content, and interactive clinical challenges, all eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ upon completion of post-assessments or quizzes. These activities are structured to align with state-mandated CME hours, enabling participants , , and to earn credits by engaging with evidence-based content, such as reading designated articles followed by evaluation forms submitted within specified timeframes (typically one month). Accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the AMA, JAMA's CME offerings emphasize practical application of research findings to clinical practice, with credits tracked via user dashboards for certificate generation and progress monitoring. An annual subscription to JN Learning grants unlimited access across JAMA and 11 affiliated specialty journals, facilitating targeted education by topic, such as cardiology or oncology, and supporting Maintenance of Certification (MOC) pathways for various medical boards. Historically, JAMA has contributed to the evolution of formalized CME since the 1970s, when the AMA implemented structured programs, and continues to publish meta-analyses evaluating CME efficacy, revealing modest but positive impacts on physician performance from interventions like those offered in its network, though effects on patient outcomes remain variable. In addition to reader-focused activities, JAMA incentivizes scholarly participation by awarding CME credits for of manuscripts, a practice adopted to enhance editorial quality and reviewer engagement, as noted in comparative journal policies. This dual provision of content and accreditation underscores JAMA's integration of with , though empirical reviews in the journal itself caution that CME's overall influence depends on interactive formats over passive reading alone.

Editorial Policies on Reporting and Peer Review

JAMA utilizes a single-anonymized process, in which peer reviewers' identities remain confidential unless they opt to disclose them, while authors' names and affiliations are visible to reviewers. Submitted manuscripts first undergo initial assessment for originality, importance, and validity; only those advancing proceed to external review by selected expert consultants. Final publication decisions rest with the or designated editors, who recuse themselves from conflicted submissions to maintain . Authors receive notifications of receipt and decisions, with the process emphasizing rigorous evaluation to uphold editorial integrity independent of external influences. For reporting, JAMA mandates adherence to EQUATOR Network guidelines tailored to study design, including CONSORT for randomized trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and STROBE for observational studies, to promote transparent and reproducible results. Research articles require structured abstracts (up to 350 words), a "Key Points" summary (75-100 words highlighting findings and implications), and detailed methods sections covering ethical approvals, informed consent, trial registration (e.g., via ClinicalTrials.gov), and data sharing plans. Authors must justify race/ethnicity reporting in methods, disclose funding sources and conflicts of interest via standardized forms, and provide access to original data upon request, with at least one author guaranteeing data verification. Dual-use research concerns, such as potential misuse of findings, require pre-notification to editors. Regarding , JAMA policies prohibit listing AI tools as authors and require disclosure of their use in manuscript preparation, , or figure generation, including tool name, version, and manufacturer in acknowledgments or methods. Peer reviewers must not input confidential manuscript content into AI systems to preserve and but may disclose non-confidential AI assistance in their evaluations. Editors apply human oversight to any AI-assisted tasks like detection, ensuring accountability aligns with ICMJE and COPE standards. These measures address risks of , hallucinations, and irreproducibility in AI-generated outputs.

Leadership and Governance

Succession of Chief Editors

The succession of chief editors at JAMA reflects the journal's evolution from its founding as a weekly of the in 1883 to a leading peer-reviewed medical periodical. Nathan S. Davis, a founder of the AMA, served as the inaugural editor, overseeing early issues focused on professional standards and advocacy. Subsequent editors navigated periods of expansion, including under George H. Simmons and Morris Fishbein, whose long tenure emphasized combating and elevating scientific rigor. Later editors adapted to post-World War II growth in and ethical challenges in publishing.
Editor-in-ChiefTerm
Nathan S. Davis, MD1883–1888
John B. Hamilton, MD1889, 1893–1898
John H. Hollister, MD1889–1891
James C. Culbertson, MD1891–1893
George H. Simmons, MD1899–1924
Morris Fishbein, MD1924–1949
Austin Smith, MD1949–1958
Johnson F. Hammond, MD1958–1959
John H. Talbott, MD1959–1969
Hugh H. Hussey, MD1970–1982
George D. Lundberg, MD1982–1999
Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH2000–2011
Howard Bauchner, MD2011–2021
Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD (interim)2021–2022
Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS2022–present
Notable transitions include Fishbein's retirement in after nearly three decades, during which JAMA's circulation and influence expanded significantly, and Bauchner's departure in 2021 following internal review of editorial handling of a on structural , leading to an interim period before the appointment of Bibbins-Domingo as the first . Terms have generally lengthened over time, with modern editors serving 10–11 years, reflecting stabilized governance under AMA oversight.

Editorial Board Composition and Influence

The editorial board of JAMA is structured hierarchically, with the at the helm, supported by deputy editors, associate editors, and a broader group of members drawn predominantly from U.S. academic medical centers and research institutions. Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, assumed the role of on July 1, 2022, succeeding Howard Bauchner, MD; she holds concurrent positions as Professor and Chair of and at the , with research emphases in health disparities and . The board's membership, numbering in the dozens across core editorial roles for JAMA itself (distinct from the broader JAMA Network's 346 members in 2021), typically includes specialists in , , and related fields, with affiliations at institutions such as UCSF, Harvard, and . Demographic composition reflects ongoing efforts to enhance diversity, particularly following internal reviews prompted by controversies over handling race-related content. Self-reported data from February 2024 across JAMA Network editors and board members show women comprising 44% (up from 38% in prior assessments) and five of the 13 editors in chief being women; racial/ethnic breakdowns from indicated 71% , 19% Asian, 6% , and 4% among 346 total members, with subsequent initiatives aimed at increasing representation of underrepresented minorities. These shifts align with explicit commitments to equity, as outlined in post-resignation announcements emphasizing staff diversification and inclusive research policies. However, analyses of top medical journals, including JAMA Network titles, have noted persistent underrepresentation of women on boards (averaging 37% across 12 journals in a 2024 study, with boards ranging from 6 to 19 members per journal). The board exerts influence through oversight of , article selection, and policy formulation, which collectively determine the journal's emphasis on , , and emerging topics like . Editorial decisions have shaped content toward greater integration of , reflecting the Editor in Chief's background in disparities research, but have drawn scrutiny for potential ideological skews. Critics have argued that board-guided policies, such as requests to remove terms like "" from submissions or prioritization of diversity initiatives, may subordinate empirical rigor to equity narratives, evidenced by the 2021 podcast episode retraction and subsequent changes. Independent reviews suggest such influences stem from the academic milieu's prevailing orientations, potentially amplifying publication biases in sensitive areas like race-adjusted medical data. Despite defenses of and rigorous standards by JAMA , these dynamics have prompted calls for transparency in processes to mitigate subconscious biases affecting study acceptance rates.

Notable Publications and Influence

Landmark Medical Research Articles

One of the most influential contributions of JAMA to has been its publication of seminal studies that shaped and policy. In celebration of its in 1983–1984, JAMA republished 51 landmark articles selected by editors for their enduring scientific impact, covering advancements from surgical innovations to epidemiological breakthroughs. These selections emphasized from controlled observations and trials that established causal links in disease and treatment . A pivotal example is the 1954 by E. Cuyler Hammond and Daniel Horn, which tracked 187,766 men over 24 months and found smokers had death rates 50% higher than nonsmokers, with particularly stark elevations for (10-fold risk) and other respiratory diseases. This analysis of habits against mortality data provided early rigorous evidence of tobacco's lethality, influencing subsequent U.S. Service reports and anti- legislation. The study's , involving large-scale follow-up without but with adjustment for confounders like age, underscored the role of observational in identifying modifiable risk factors. Another cornerstone was Robert E. Gross and John P. Hubbard's 1938 report on the first successful surgical ligation of a in an 8-year-old child, detailing the procedure's technique, intraoperative findings, and postoperative recovery without antibiotics. This case marked the advent of corrective for congenital defects, paving the way for advancements in pediatric and thoracic procedures that reduced from such anomalies. The article's documentation of hemodynamic improvements via clinical observation and rudimentary diagnostics highlighted surgery's potential to address previously inoperable conditions. In , Albert B. Sabin's 1960 evaluation of live oral in over 1 million children in the demonstrated 90% efficacy against paralytic amid high endemic exposure, with minimal adverse events despite massive dosing. This field trial validated the vaccine's superiority for over inactivated alternatives, contributing to global efforts and influencing vaccination strategies for enteric pathogens. The data, derived from of clinical outcomes in hyperendemic areas, affirmed live-attenuated vaccines' practicality for campaigns. These and other JAMA publications, such as early reports on and oral contraceptive risks, amassed thousands of citations, as evidenced by analyses of pre-1983 references, affirming their role in evidence-based shifts from descriptive to intervention-focused .

High-Profile Non-Research Contributions

JAMA has published numerous editorials and that have influenced debates, often bridging with recommendations for systemic change. These non-research pieces, distinct from original studies, provide expert analysis on pressing issues, drawing on aggregated data and first-principles evaluation of causal factors in challenges. For instance, in , JAMA featured a series of 2 editorials and 19 as part of the of Medicine's Vital Directions for Health and initiative, which involved over 150 experts identifying priorities across better health outcomes, high-value care, and advancing science and technology. These contributions outlined actionable strategies, such as reforming payment models to incentivize value over volume and enhancing data infrastructure for , directly informing congressional hearings and policy proposals on efficiency. A prominent example is the October 2017 viewpoint by former CDC Director Thomas Frieden, MD, titled "Ten Steps the Federal Government Can Take to Reverse the ," which advocated for expanded access to medications for (OUD), improved retention in treatment programs, and widespread distribution to counter overdoses. Frieden's analysis emphasized causal links between prescribing practices, untreated addiction, and mortality rates—exceeding 42,000 -related deaths that year—urging regulatory actions like limiting initial prescriptions to three days for acute pain and prioritizing evidence-based interventions over unproven alternatives. This piece garnered citations in federal reports and contributed to subsequent expansions in coverage for OUD treatment under the SUPPORT Act of 2018, demonstrating JAMA's role in translating data-driven insights into legislative momentum. Another influential contribution addressed the opioid crisis's framing as a national emergency in a 2017 viewpoint, critiquing the declaration's scope while calling for integrated responses beyond s to encompass broader substance misuse and social determinants. Such commentaries have prompted scrutiny of policy efficacy, highlighting the need for rigorous evaluation of interventions amid rising synthetic involvement, with over 100,000 deaths reported in 2021. These non-research outputs underscore JAMA's capacity to catalyze debate, though their impact depends on alignment with verifiable causal mechanisms rather than alone.

Metrics and Academic Impact

Impact Factor and Journal Rankings

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for JAMA, calculated by in the 2024 Journal Citation Reports based on citations in 2023 to articles published in 2021 and 2022, is 55.0. This metric positions JAMA as a leading publication in the "Medicine, General and Internal" category, with a of 98.8% among peer journals. The journal's 5-year JIF, which averages citations over a longer window to account for delayed impact in clinical fields, is 64.7 for the same period. In broader rankings, JAMA consistently places among the top five general medical journals globally, trailing only outlets like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet in citation-based metrics. Its SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) score of 5.352 for 2023 reflects elite status (Q1 quartile) across medicine and multidisciplinary categories, driven by high citation rates from diverse scholarly outputs including original research and reviews. Historically, JAMA's JIF has trended upward from approximately 11 in the early —following editorial shifts emphasizing high-impact clinical studies—reaching a peak of 120.7 in the 2023 release (reflecting data) before the recent figure. Such fluctuations underscore the JIF's sensitivity to annual citation volumes, self-citations (capped at 0% influence in Clarivate's methodology), and field-specific citation norms, where general medicine journals benefit from broad applicability but face competition from specialized high-cite outlets. Despite critiques of the JIF as an imperfect proxy for journal quality—due to potential gaming via editorial incentives and exclusion of non-citable content—JAMA's metrics affirm its role in disseminating influential medical evidence.

Abstracting, Indexing, and Citation Analysis

JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, is abstracted and indexed in key biomedical and scientific databases, enabling broad discoverability of its content. These include , provided by the National Library of Medicine (NLM), which indexes peer-reviewed literature for medical topics; , the NLM's free accessing MEDLINE citations and additional sources; , Elsevier's database covering international biomedical literature; , Elsevier's abstract and citation database; and , Clarivate's platform including the (SCIE) for high-impact journals. Indexing in these services typically involves structured abstracts, keywords, and metadata, with assigning (MeSH) terms for precise retrieval.
DatabaseProviderScope Focus
NLMBiomedical literature with MeSH indexing
NLM plus full-text links and life sciences
Drug and pharmacology emphasis
Multidisciplinary abstracts and citations
Citation indexing across sciences
Citation analysis for JAMA reveals substantial scholarly impact, tracked primarily through and . The journal's stands at 794, indicating 794 articles each cited at least 794 times, reflecting sustained influence across decades of publication. In (SCIE), JAMA receives comprehensive citation tracking, with analyses showing it garners high citation volumes compared to peers; for instance, a 2009 of JAMA articles found capturing 18% more citations than for similar medical journals. These metrics underscore JAMA's role in disseminating widely referenced research, though cross-database variations highlight the need for multi-source evaluation, as often reports higher counts due to broader coverage.

Controversies

2021 Structural Racism Incident

In early , JAMA released a episode titled "Structural Racism for Doctors—What Is It?", hosted by deputy editor , MD, with guest Mitchell Katz, MD, editor of JAMA . In the 16-minute discussion, Livingston contended that structural does not exist in U.S. healthcare because individual physicians are not racist—citing the illegality of and his own experiences—and suggested that racial disparities in health outcomes stem primarily from socioeconomic factors rather than embedded systemic biases independent of personal intent. Katz acknowledged disparities linked to historical inequities but did not strongly counter Livingston's skepticism toward the term "structural ," later distancing himself by condemning the episode's framing. A Twitter post promoting the episode read: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors,” prompting immediate outcry for appearing to equate the absence of overt individual prejudice with the nonexistence of broader institutional effects. The tweet was deleted shortly after, and the podcast faced accusations of minimizing racial inequities in medicine, with critics—including Black physicians and researchers—arguing it exemplified JAMA's pattern of favoring genetic or socioeconomic explanations over racism in prior publications on topics like COVID-19 disparities. Backlash intensified with an online petition amassing nearly 8,000 signatures by late March, demanding JAMA overhaul its editorial practices to prioritize racial equity and cease "perpetuating racism in medicine." Livingston resigned on March 25, 2021, amid the uproar. Editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, issued an apology to JAMA staff, acknowledging the content's failure to reflect the journal's values, and was placed on administrative leave on March 29, 2021, while the American Medical Association (AMA) commissioned an external review of editorial processes related to the podcast and tweet. The review culminated in Bauchner's resignation, announced June 1, 2021, effective June 30, with him accepting "ultimate responsibility" for oversight lapses despite not authoring the content. The AMA, which publishes JAMA, responded by outlining a multi-year plan to address structural barriers in medicine and appointing Otis Brawley, MD, to lead the search for a successor focused on advancing equity. The episode underscored ongoing tensions in academic medicine over interpreting health disparities, where Livingston's emphasis on verifiable individual-level evidence clashed with prevailing institutional narratives attributing persistent gaps to impersonal systemic forces.

Shifts in Race/Ethnicity Reporting Policies

In February 2021, JAMA published an editorial analyzing historical trends in race and ethnicity reporting in medical journals, noting that categories have evolved over time due to social and political changes, with earlier uses often treating race as a biological proxy that has since been reframed as a social construct. This reflected broader academic shifts away from biological determinism toward emphasizing socioeconomic and structural factors in health disparities. On August 17, 2021, JAMA issued "Updated Guidance on the Reporting of Race and in Medical and Journals," revising prior practices to prioritize equity, consistency, and clarity. The new policy, incorporated into the 11th edition of the , mandates that authors describe race and ethnicity as sociopolitical constructs rather than biological or genetic ones, explicitly cautioning against using them as proxies for genetic ancestry unless justified by study design. Key requirements include detailing the rationale for collecting such data, methods of ascertainment (e.g., self-report vs. observer), specific category definitions aligned with U.S. standards (such as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander), and contextual statements on limitations, like potential inaccuracies in self-identification or risks of reinforcing stereotypes. These changes aimed to address perceived misuse of race in that could perpetuate inequities, influenced by post-2020 discussions on structural in , though critics have argued the guidance downplays of genetic contributions to risks across ancestral groups. Subsequent JAMA Network instructions for authors reinforced this by requiring and referencing the guidance in manuscript preparation. Adherence studies post-update indicate partial compliance: a 2023 analysis of JAMA, NEJM, and found improved but inconsistent reporting, with persistent issues like conflating race and in 19% of articles by 2025, down from 38% pre-update. No major policy reversals have occurred as of 2025, though ongoing evaluations highlight challenges in balancing demographic transparency with avoiding deterministic interpretations.

Criticisms of Editorial Bias and Retractions

JAMA has encountered accusations of editorial bias favoring establishment narratives on interventions, particularly during the . Detractors, including the authors of retracted studies, have argued that editorial decisions prioritized alignment with consensus views over rigorous scientific scrutiny. For example, the July 2021 retraction of a randomized measuring levels in inhaled air among healthy children wearing face masks was challenged by lead author Harald Walach, who contended that the journal's cited reasons—such as inadequate documentation and methodological concerns—were pretextual, given the absence of proven data errors or , and that the findings threatened mask-wearing policies. Independent analyses echoed concerns that the paper's conclusions, indicating elevated CO2 exposure exceeding German occupational limits, invited politically charged backlash, potentially influencing the retraction despite initial approval. A 2022 JAMA study associating higher county-level prescriptions of and —drugs promoted for off-label use—with stronger Republican voting in the 2020 U.S. (e.g., rates rising to 10-fold in high-Republican areas post-March 2020) elicited claims of injecting partisan bias into pharmacoepidemiology, framing clinical decisions as politically driven rather than evaluating on or access. Critics from conservative medical commentators viewed this as emblematic of journals conflating empirical treatment data with ideological judgments, potentially deterring prescribers amid regulatory scrutiny. On retractions, JAMA has retracted articles for , including three 2005 papers in JAMA and Archives of on bisphosphonates for prevention, after coauthor Dennis M. Black admitted falsifying data on adverse events; the notices emphasized institutional investigations confirming manipulation undetected in initial reviews. Similarly, in 2018, JAMA retracted a Wansink-led study on food labeling after Cornell University's probe revealed p-hacking and selective reporting, part of 15 total retractions across journals for the researcher, raising questions about editorial safeguards against "questionable research practices" in high-profile nutrition . These cases have fueled broader critiques of JAMA's editorial processes, with observers attributing patterns to incentives prioritizing , positive findings over null results or data, compounded by potential ideological filters in topic selection. A 2023 JAMA Network Open retraction and replacement of a gaming-cognition study due to undeclared author conflicts and discrepancies further underscored ongoing challenges in maintaining impartiality. Despite rigorous , such incidents have prompted calls for enhanced pre-publication audits, as retractions averaged under 1% of outputs but often involved overlooked fraud signals.

Recent Developments

Digital Innovations and AI Integration (2024–2025)

In November 2024, the JAMA Network launched JAMA+ AI, a dedicated digital channel aggregating research, educational reviews, opinion pieces, podcasts, and videos on applications in , including and neural networks for clinical . This platform centralizes content to facilitate exploration of AI's clinical potential, such as in interpretation and workflow augmentation, while addressing challenges. The channel supports multimodal AI discussions, reflecting broader trends where physician AI tool adoption rose from 38% in 2023 to 66% in 2024, often for administrative tasks like . The second JAMA Summit on , convened in in fall 2024, emphasized integrating AI into clinical practice amid regulatory gaps, with proceedings published as a special report in October 2025 outlining standards for validation, transparency, and equity to mitigate risks like exacerbating health disparities. A concurrent Special Communication in JAMA advocated for rigorous AI development frameworks, including prospective evaluation and federal oversight, given AI's role in transforming fields like without displacing human expertise. The summit also prompted a call for papers on AI's impact on clinical trials, diversity in recruitment, and ethical deployment. In late 2024, JAMA Network updated its author guidelines to permit generative AI for , such as drafting or editing manuscripts, provided disclosures detail its use to maintain transparency and in peer-reviewed outputs. This policy aligns with emerging evidence on AI scribes reducing burnout, as demonstrated in a 2025 quality improvement study showing decreased after-hours documentation time. However, surveys indicate mixed public perceptions, with AI-assisted physicians rated lower on despite comparable competence. These initiatives underscore JAMA's pivot toward evidence-based AI governance, prioritizing causal validation over unchecked adoption.

Ongoing Influence on Policy and Practice

JAMA continues to exert influence on medical policy and clinical practice primarily through the publication of high-impact research, consensus guidelines, and recommendation statements from authoritative bodies such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). USPSTF recommendations, frequently appearing in JAMA, shape preventive care mandates under the , requiring coverage without cost-sharing for services rated A or B; for instance, the January 2025 USPSTF reaffirmation of screening for women aged 65 and older, published in JAMA, reinforces testing protocols adopted by insurers and clinicians to reduce . Similarly, the March 2025 USPSTF statement on screening for food insecurity, deeming evidence insufficient (I recommendation), has prompted reevaluation of routine social assessments in settings, influencing integration into electronic health records and programs. Original JAMA research and meta-analyses frequently underpin updates to clinical guidelines disseminated via the journal's Clinical Guidelines Synopsis series. The July 2025 synopsis of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy, published in JAMA, summarizes evidence-based management emphasizing inhaled therapies and , which professional societies like the American Thoracic Society reference in practice protocols. In May 2025, JAMA's synopsis of Endocrine Society vitamin D supplementation guidelines highlighted limited benefits for disease prevention beyond bone health, tempering widespread supplementation practices and aligning with cost-effectiveness analyses in . These synopses, designed for rapid clinician uptake, bridge research-to-practice gaps, with JAMA studies cited in over 20% of major guideline updates from 2020–2025 according to citation analyses. JAMA's methodological contributions, such as the April 2025 SPIRIT statement updating protocols for interventional trials, standardize to enhance and regulatory approval processes, indirectly affecting drug and device policy through FDA and EMA adoptions. The journal's longstanding Users' Guides to the series, evolving since 1993 with periodic expansions, trains practitioners in appraising evidence, fostering adoption of therapies supported by randomized trials over anecdotal or low-quality data; this has measurably improved diagnostic accuracy in series like Rational Clinical Examination, reducing unnecessary testing by up to 30% in evaluated conditions. Through JAMA Health Forum, policy analyses—such as July 2025 projections of excess deaths from proposed eligibility restrictions—inform legislative debates, with cited estimates of 13–14 additional deaths per 100,000 enrollees influencing congressional hearings on work requirements. Despite this reach, implementation lags persist, with evidence taking an average of 17 years to alter practice, as evidenced by studies referencing JAMA trials; factors include clinician inertia and systemic barriers, underscoring JAMA's role in advocating integrated trial-practice models to accelerate .

References

  1. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama
  2. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/ama-history/ama-history
  3. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/291201
  4. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/for-authors
  5. https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/06/podcast-puts-jama-under-fire-for-mishandling-of-race/
  6. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/02/health/jama-racism-bauchner.html
  7. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/leadership/speaking-out-against-structural-racism-jama-and-across-health-care
  8. https://www.healio.com/news/pulmonology/20250502/us-attorney-alleges-medical-journals-are-biased-including-chest
  9. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2807530
  10. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/issue/I/1
  11. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/662353
  12. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/issue/I/15
  13. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113567
  14. https://www.cureus.com/articles/370572-rockefeller-the-flexner-report-and-the-american-medical-association-the-contentious-relationship-between-conventional-medicine-and-homeopathy-in-america
  15. https://www.chicagotribune.com/1985/08/25/medicine-men-7/
  16. https://hekint.org/2021/05/28/morris-fishbein-md-foe-of-four-flushers-flimflammers-and-fakes/
  17. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/291979
  18. https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.FISHBEIN
  19. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765735
  20. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192531
  21. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2566351
  22. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/1203902
  23. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/articlepdf/1211974/yed120003_660_660.pdf?resultClick=1
  24. https://jamanetwork.com/collections/6300/online-first
  25. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-launches-new-open-access-journal-jama-network-open
  26. https://jamanetwork.com/pages/access-at-jama-network
  27. https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=85291&tip=sid&clean=0
  28. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors
  29. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/
  30. https://jamanetwork.com/
  31. https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning
  32. https://library.aah.org/guides/jamanetwork/earncredit
  33. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/publications-newsletters/3-things-you-should-know-about-cme-jama-network
  34. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/301452
  35. https://edhub.ama-assn.org/pages/ama-cme
  36. https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/pages/about-cme
  37. https://jamanetwork.com/collections/5582/continuing-medical-education-and-maintenance-of-certification
  38. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/191423
  39. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/370067
  40. https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085%2805%2902441-8/fulltext
  41. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10478694/
  42. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/390881
  43. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2807956
  44. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2491643
  45. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2442943
  46. https://www.ovid.com/journals/jama/pdf/10.1001/jama.2014.11866~jama
  47. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/leadership/catherine-deangelis
  48. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-announces-transition-jama-editorial-leadership
  49. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-names-new-editor-chief-jama-and-jama-network
  50. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/286678
  51. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/health/jama-bauchner-racism.html
  52. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/971957
  53. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2840239
  54. https://profiles.ucsf.edu/kirsten.bibbins-domingo
  55. https://www.healthday.com/health-news/public-health/b-6-3-after-editor-in-chiefs-resignation-jama-journals-outline-steps-to-address-racism-2653221634.html
  56. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2815188
  57. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/jwh.2023.0685
  58. https://www.city-journal.org/article/jama-network-science-diseases-dei-inequity
  59. https://www.reproductivetimes.com/p/political-biases-at-some-of-the-best
  60. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/publications-newsletters/top-medical-journal-editors-defend-their-standards-independence
  61. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/194966
  62. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/387344
  63. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-104-1-141_2
  64. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/295889
  65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13174399/
  66. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/363835
  67. https://nam.edu/our-work/programs/vital-directions-for-health-and-health-care/jama-vital-directions-viewpoint/
  68. https://nam.edu/our-work/programs/vital-directions-for-health-and-health-care/
  69. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2657452
  70. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2652445
  71. https://wos-journal.info/journalid/4
  72. https://www.sciencewritingphd.com/perspectives/the-top-50-medical-academic-journals-with-impact-factor
  73. https://media.jamanetwork.com/announcement/strength-of-jama-and-jama-network-reflected-in-new-journal-impact-factors/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1828328/
  75. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202114
  76. https://library.louisville.edu/researching-journals/medicine
  77. https://pubrica.com/academy/journals-templates/jama-impact-factor-guidelines/
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155174112400192X
  79. https://impactfactorforjournal.com/jama-impact-factor/
  80. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/184519
  81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19738094/
  82. https://blogs.the-hospitalist.org/content/jama-editor-resigns-over-controversial-podcast
  83. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/health/jama-bauchner-race-medicine.html
  84. https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n851
  85. https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1433
  86. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776936
  87. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2783090
  88. https://jamanetwork.com/pages/inclusive-language
  89. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2838315
  90. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2802003
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12406061/
  92. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/07/16/jama-journal-retracts-paper-on-masks-for-children/
  93. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/07/08/authors-of-widely-panned-study-of-masks-in-children-respond-to-critics/
  94. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2781743
  95. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789363
  96. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/968827
  97. https://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/03/jama-journals-pull-3-papers-by-same-authors-for-misconduct/
  98. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/19/17879102/brian-wansink-cornell-food-brand-lab-retractions-jama
  99. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2803642
  100. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1212247109
  101. https://jamanetwork.com/channels/ai
  102. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/jama-unveils-channel-devoted-health-ai-research-perspective
  103. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/augmented-intelligence-medicine
  104. https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/digital-health/2-3-physicians-are-using-health-ai-78-2023
  105. https://jamanetwork.com/pages/jama-summit-artificial-intelligence
  106. https://media.jamanetwork.com/announcement/artificial-intelligence-at-jama-summit-report-jama-ai-resources-call-for-papers/
  107. https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/jama-medicine-is-flying-blind-on-ai
  108. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2840175
  109. https://amastyleinsider.com/2024/11/27/can-jama-network-authors-use-generative-artificial-intelligence-to-create-content/
  110. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2839542
  111. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2836557
  112. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2829238
  113. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2831307
  114. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/issue/334/4
  115. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/issue/333/20
  116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37018006/
  117. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2833408
  118. https://guides.library.stonybrook.edu/evidence-based-medicine/jama_users_guides
  119. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2836460
  120. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2819411
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.