From jama-skills
Assesses clinical study fit for JAMA by evaluating general-medical-importance and article-type match. Saves time by flagging off-fit submissions before full write-up.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/jama-skills:jama-scope-fitThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
- Before committing weeks to formatting a manuscript for JAMA
JAMA serves a broad clinician readership across all of medicine. Ask, in order:
If you cannot answer (1) and (2) affirmatively, JAMA is probably the wrong home — say so plainly.
| 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).
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).
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).
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.
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.
【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)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin jama-skillsGuides manuscript preparation and submission for JAMA. Evaluates fit, framing, evidence bar, and house style to reduce desk rejection risk.
Stress-tests whether a clinical study clears NEJM's bar for practice-changing impact, methodological rigor, and generalizability. Routes to realistic target journal when NEJM is a long shot.
Evaluates whether a clinical study fits JAMA Internal Medicine, covering scope, evidence bar, reporting guidelines, and desk-reject heuristics.