jama-internal-medicine

JAMA Internal Medicine (jama-internal-medicine)

Journal positioning

JAMA Internal Medicine is a JAMA Network specialty journal for clinical research,

evidence synthesis, and health-policy scholarship relevant to the practice of adult

internal medicine. It favors rigorous, clinically important work — randomized trials,

high-quality comparative-effectiveness and observational studies, and analyses that

challenge low-value care or inform practice and policy — with a strong emphasis on

methodological soundness and direct relevance to patient care and clinical decision

making. Underpowered single-center studies, descriptive case series, and analyses

with no clear practice implication are a weak fit. This skill is a **fit /

venue-selection / re-framing** aid; it is not clinical or regulatory advice and does

not replace the journal's current instructions for authors. Before submitting,

re-check the live JAMA Internal Medicine author instructions.

When to trigger

• The author names JAMA Internal Medicine for an internal-medicine clinical or

health-services study and wants a fit/framing check.

• A clinical study must be re-framed around a clear practice-changing or

policy-relevant question for a general internal-medicine readership.

• The author is choosing between JAMA Internal Medicine, JAMA, and a subspecialty

journal.

• The author needs the journal's reporting-guideline, registration, and desk-reject

expectations.

Scope & topic fit

• Randomized clinical trials in adult internal medicine, including pragmatic and

de-implementation ("less is more") trials.

• Comparative-effectiveness, cohort, and large database studies with rigorous design

and confounding control.

• Diagnostic, screening, and prognostic studies with clinically meaningful endpoints.
• Health-policy, quality, value-of-care, and health-services research relevant to

internal medicine.

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that answer a focused clinical question.

Method & evidence bar

• Studies must be adequately powered with prespecified, patient-centered primary

outcomes; surrogate-only endpoints need strong justification.

• The applicable reporting guideline must be followed and its checklist supplied:

CONSORT for trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews.

• Trials require prospective registration; the trial-registration number and a

protocol/statistical-analysis plan are expected.

• Observational claims must address confounding, bias, and missing data explicitly;

causal language must match the design.

• Effect estimates should be reported with confidence intervals and absolute as well

as relative measures; clinical (not just statistical) significance must be argued.

Structure & house style

• JAMA Network format with a structured abstract and a Key Points box; re-check

current article types (Original Investigation, Research Letter, etc.) and limits on

the live guide.

• The introduction frames a focused clinical question and its importance; the

discussion states the practice or policy implication plainly.

• Tables/figures follow JAMA Network statistical-reporting standards; a CONSORT/STROBE

flow diagram is expected where applicable.

• Supplements carry the protocol, full statistical methods, and additional analyses.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and

../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the ICMJE and JAMA Network

anchors, then cite the current JAMA Internal Medicine page you checked.

• Search the live site for "JAMA Internal Medicine instructions for authors" and follow

the current version.

• Re-check article types and word/reference/table limits, structured-abstract and Key

Points format, and the JAMA Network statistical-reporting requirements.

• Confirm trial registration, the reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA), data-sharing

statement, and protocol/SAP submission.

• Re-check IRB/ethics and consent statements, ICMJE authorship and conflict-of-interest

disclosure, funding, and AI-use disclosure.

• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions

win.

Pre-submission self-check

• [ ] The study answers a focused, clinically important question with a clear practice or policy implication.
• [ ] The primary outcome is prespecified and patient-centered; the study is adequately powered.
• [ ] The correct reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA) is completed and attached.
• [ ] Trials are prospectively registered with the number in the manuscript; protocol/SAP provided.
• [ ] Confounding, bias, and missing data are addressed, and causal language matches the design.
• [ ] IRB/consent, ICMJE disclosures, and a data-sharing statement are prepared.

Common desk-reject triggers

• Underpowered or single-center studies with limited generalizability and no clear practice change.
• Observational analyses with inadequate confounding control or overstated causal claims.
• Missing trial registration, protocol, or the required reporting checklist.
• Surrogate-only endpoints presented as clinically definitive.
• Narrow subspecialty interest better served by a specialty journal, or limited general-internal-medicine relevance.

Re-routing decision

• Practice-changing, broadly significant trial → general medicine (jama / NEJM / The Lancet in the natural-science bundle).
• Oncology focus → jama-oncology / annals-of-oncology.
• Cardiology / neurology / nephrology subspecialty → jama-cardiology / jama-neurology / journal-of-the-american-society-of-nephrology.
• Population-health or policy intervention → the-lancet-public-health.
• Psychiatry / surgery focus → jama-psychiatry / jama-surgery.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] JAMA Internal Medicine
[Specialty tags] <2–3 closest internal-medicine topics>
[Study design / reporting guideline] <RCT-CONSORT / cohort-STROBE / review-PRISMA>
[Method/evidence] <does power, design, and registration clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / registration / checklist / ethics / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>