JAMA Surgery (jama-surgery)
Journal positioning
JAMA Surgery is a JAMA Network specialty journal for surgical clinical research across
general, vascular, thoracic, transplant, trauma, and surgical-subspecialty practice. It
favors rigorous, practice-relevant work — randomized and well-designed surgical trials,
large surgical-outcomes and registry analyses, perioperative and quality-improvement
research, and comparative-effectiveness studies — with JAMA's emphasis on patient-
centered outcomes, adequate risk adjustment, and direct relevance to surgical care.
Single-surgeon case series, descriptive technique reports without comparative outcomes,
and underpowered studies 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
Surgery author instructions.
When to trigger
- The author names JAMA Surgery for a surgical trial, outcomes, or perioperative study
and wants a fit/framing check.
- A surgical study must be re-framed around a comparative, patient-centered outcome with
appropriate risk adjustment for a practicing-surgery audience.
- The author is choosing between JAMA Surgery, JAMA, and a surgical-subspecialty
journal.
- The author needs the journal's surgical-trial reporting, registration, and
desk-reject expectations.
Scope & topic fit
- Randomized and pragmatic surgical trials (operative vs. nonoperative, technique vs.
technique, or perioperative interventions) with patient-centered outcomes.
- Large surgical-outcomes, registry, and claims analyses (e.g., NSQIP-style) with robust
risk adjustment for case mix.
- Perioperative, enhanced-recovery, anesthesia-surgery interface, and surgical-safety
research.
- Comparative-effectiveness and value-of-surgery studies, including de-implementation of
low-value operations.
- Surgical quality, volume-outcome, disparities, and health-services research.
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses answering a focused surgical question.
Method & evidence bar
- Studies must use patient-centered outcomes (mortality, complications graded by a
standard scheme, function, quality of life) with adequate risk adjustment; technical
success alone is insufficient.
- The applicable reporting guideline and checklist are required: CONSORT for trials,
STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews; surgical-innovation
work should engage IDEAL-framework stages where relevant.
- Surgical-trial reporting challenges must be addressed explicitly: blinding is often
impossible (state who was blinded — patients, assessors, analysts), the learning curve
and surgeon/center experience must be reported, and the intervention must be
standardized and described reproducibly.
- Trials require prospective registration; registration number, protocol, and
statistical-analysis plan are expected.
- Observational/registry claims must address confounding by indication, selection bias,
and clustering by surgeon/center; causal language must match the design.
- Volume-outcome and center-effect analyses need appropriate multilevel modeling.
Structure & house style
- JAMA Network format with a structured abstract and a Key Points box; re-check current
article types (Original Investigation, Brief Report, Research Letter, etc.) and limits
on the live guide.
- The introduction frames a focused, practice-relevant surgical question; the discussion
states the clinical implication and net benefit/harm plainly.
- Tables/figures follow JAMA Network statistical-reporting standards; CONSORT/STROBE
flow diagrams, complication tables, and risk-adjusted outcome figures are expected
where applicable.
- Supplements carry the protocol, SAP, intervention standardization details, 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 Surgery page you checked.
- Search the live site for "JAMA Surgery 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), the
data-sharing statement, and protocol/SAP submission.
- Re-check IRB/ethics and consent statements, ICMJE disclosures (including
device/industry ties), funding, and AI-use disclosure.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions
win.
Pre-submission self-check
Common desk-reject triggers
- Single-surgeon or single-center case series and technique reports with no comparator or risk adjustment.
- Outcomes reported as technical success only, without complications, function, or patient-centered endpoints.
- Surgical trials that ignore blinding, the learning curve, or intervention standardization.
- Registry analyses with confounding by indication or unaddressed surgeon/center clustering and overstated causal claims.
- Missing trial registration, protocol, or the required reporting checklist.
- Narrow surgical-subspecialty interest better served by a subspecialty journal.
Re-routing decision
- Broadly practice-changing, top-tier surgical trial → general medicine (
jama / NEJM / The Lancet in the natural-science bundle).
- Surgical-oncology with a cancer-endpoint center of gravity →
jama-oncology / annals-of-oncology.
- Cardiac/cardiovascular surgical outcomes tied to cardiology endpoints →
jama-cardiology.
- Neurosurgical/cerebrovascular focus →
jama-neurology / stroke / brain.
- General internal-medicine or perioperative-medicine relevance over surgery →
jama-internal-medicine.
Output format
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] JAMA Surgery
[Specialty tags] <2–3 closest surgical topics>
[Study design / reporting guideline] <RCT-CONSORT / registry-STROBE / review-PRISMA / innovation-IDEAL>
[Method/evidence] <does outcome choice, risk adjustment, blinding/learning-curve, and registration clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / registration / checklist / standardization / ethics / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>