From nejm-skills
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.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/nejm-skills:nejm-fitThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
NEJM triages **the large majority of submissions to rejection without external review**. The gate is not "is the study sound" — it is **"would this change clinical practice, and is the evidence definitive enough to justify that change."** A well-conducted but narrow study is desk-rejected. Run this before investing in prose.
NEJM triages the large majority of submissions to rejection without external review. The gate is not "is the study sound" — it is "would this change clinical practice, and is the evidence definitive enough to justify that change." A well-conducted but narrow study is desk-rejected. Run this before investing in prose.
NEJM weighs three things together. A paper passes only if it clears all three:
A large RCT with a surrogate endpoint can still fail gate 1. A striking finding from one underpowered single-center study fails gates 2–3.
If you cannot place the work at rung 4+, NEJM is a long shot — be honest with the user and name the realistic target.
nejm-study-design).| Situation | Recommend |
|---|---|
| Definitive, practice-changing, generalizable RCT/landmark study | NEJM (Original Article) |
| Rigorous and important, but global-health or broad public-health framing | The Lancet |
| Strong clinical trial/study, large general-medicine audience | JAMA |
| Methodologically strong, fits open-science/registration ethos | BMJ |
| Important to one specialty, not broad practice | specialty journal (Circulation, Blood, JCO, …) |
| Solid but not top-tier general impact; pragmatic/methods focus | NEJM Evidence / specialty |
| Early-phase / mechanism / surrogate only | translational or specialty journal |
【Three gates】 clinical importance / rigor / generalizability — pass or fail each, one line
【Significance rung】 1–5 + one-line justification
【Outcome type】 patient-important / surrogate-only → flag if surrogate
【Fatal triggers present】 [...]
【Recommended venue】 NEJM / Lancet / JAMA / BMJ / specialty / NEJM Evidence
【If staying with NEJM, the single sentence of practice-changing impact】 "..."
【Next】 nejm-study-design (if pass) | reconsider venue (if fail)
npx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin nejm-skillsGuides clinical researchers in targeting NEJM by evaluating manuscript fit, framing, evidence bar, and submission requirements. Helps avoid desk rejection.
Stress-tests whether a study meets The Lancet's bar for clinical/public-health importance, global relevance, and practice-changing impact. Use before drafting to decide venue (Lancet vs. family title vs. other journal).
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.