jama-scope-fit
GitHub评估临床研究是否符合JAMA期刊的广泛医学重要性标准及文章类型匹配度。在投稿前判断研究是否值得投入，避免向错误期刊投稿。不用于设计研究或撰写论文。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jama-scope-fit -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jama-scope-fit",
"description": "Use when judging whether a clinical study clears JAMA's general-medical-importance bar before investing in a full submission. Assesses fit and article-type match; it does NOT design the study or write the paper."
}
Scope & Importance Fit (jama-scope-fit)
When to trigger
- Before committing weeks to formatting a manuscript for JAMA
- The finding feels solid but you suspect it is too narrow / subspecialty
- Choosing between JAMA, a JAMA Network specialty journal, and a field journal
- An editor or mentor asked "is this really a general-medicine paper?"
The general-medical-importance test
JAMA serves a broad clinician readership across all of medicine. Ask, in order:
- Does it change what a practicing clinician thinks or does? A result that only matters to a single subspecialty lab rarely fits; a result that informs everyday diagnosis, treatment, or prevention does.
- Is the question clinically important, not just statistically novel? Mechanistic novelty alone is off-fit; patient-relevant outcomes (mortality, function, major morbidity, validated patient-reported outcomes) are on-fit.
- Is the evidence near the top of the design hierarchy for the question? RCTs, large well-controlled cohorts, rigorous diagnostic-accuracy studies, and systematic reviews/meta-analyses are the core. Underpowered pilots and uncontrolled case series are off-fit.
- Is it timely and generalizable? Single-center convenience samples that do not generalize weaken fit.
If you cannot answer (1) and (2) affirmatively, JAMA is probably the wrong home — say so plainly.
Article-type match (verify current types on the journal site)
| Your study | Likely JAMA article type |
|---|---|
| Randomized clinical trial | Original Investigation (with CONSORT) |
| Prospective/retrospective cohort, case-control | Original Investigation (with STROBE) |
| Diagnostic-accuracy study | Original Investigation (with STARD) |
| Systematic review ± meta-analysis | Review / Original Investigation (PRISMA) |
| Health-policy analysis with clinical bearing | Special Communication / Viewpoint |
| Short, focused dataset | Research Letter |
| Synthesis without systematic methods | Off-fit as Original Investigation |
Match the article type to JAMA's current categories and word/format limits — verify on the official Instructions for Authors page (do not assume fixed numbers).
What the JAMA desk editor screens before review
JAMA — the Journal of the American Medical Association, the AMA / JAMA Network flagship for a broad clinician readership — desk-rejects most submissions before external review. Triage turns on whether the finding plausibly changes clinical practice or policy, not whether it is correct. Common pre-review desk rejects: a single-center pilot pitched as practice-changing; a surrogate endpoint with no patient-relevant outcome; a retrospectively registered trial (registration must precede enrollment); a mechanism/biomarker paper that changes no decision; an underpowered "negative" trial framed as proof of no effect (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Worked example: routing a vignette (illustrative)
Vignette (illustrative): a multicenter randomized clinical trial, N = 4,200 adults with community-acquired sepsis across 30 sites, restrictive vs liberal IV-fluid strategy; pre-specified primary outcome 90-day mortality, 18.1% vs 21.4%, absolute risk difference -3.3 percentage points (95% CI, -5.9 to -0.7).
- Changes practice (everyday cross-specialty decision), patient-relevant outcome (90-day mortality, CI excludes null), top-of-hierarchy and generalizable (powered, 30-site RCT): all yes.
Verdict: strong fit for a JAMA Original Investigation (CONSORT). Contrast: the same team reporting only a 48-hour serum-cytokine surrogate in 60 patients at one ICU flips to off-fit — route to a specialty journal.
Reviewer / editor pushback and the JAMA fix
- "Clinical bottom line not actionable for practice." Fix: restate importance as a concrete change to diagnosis, treatment, or prevention; if none exists, the venue is wrong.
- "Audience too narrow for JAMA." Fix: evidence broad relevance, or move to the matching JAMA Network specialty title as plan B.
Calibration anchors (hedge where uncertain): the general-medical-importance bar, the evidence hierarchy, and the clinical-decision-impact standard are durable; article-type word/exhibit caps are volatile — confirm against current author guidelines.
Checklist
- The clinical question matters to a broad clinician audience, not one niche
- Primary outcome is patient-relevant, not a surrogate of unclear value
- Study design is high on the evidence hierarchy for this question
- Sample/setting support generalizable conclusions
- A correct JAMA article type exists for this work
- If narrow, a JAMA Network specialty journal or field journal is considered as plan B
- Importance can be stated in one sentence a non-specialist clinician understands
Anti-patterns
- Pitching a single-center, hypothesis-generating pilot as a definitive Original Investigation
- Leading with mechanistic/molecular novelty rather than clinical consequence
- Surrogate-only endpoints presented as practice-changing
- Assuming high statistical significance equals general medical importance
- Ignoring that a better-fit JAMA Network specialty journal exists
Output format
【Importance verdict】strong fit / borderline / off-fit
【One-sentence clinical importance】...
【Primary outcome patient-relevant?】yes / no
【Evidence level for the question】RCT / cohort / diagnostic / review / weaker
【Proposed JAMA article type】...
【Plan B journal if borderline】...
【Next skill】jama-study-design (if fit) / reconsider venue (if off-fit)
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:24
