The Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM) extends its sincere gratitude to the 1479 peer reviewers who generously volunteered their time and expertise in 2024. Your dedication to the peer review process, a cornerstone of scientific publishing, is essential to JGIM’s mission of delivering high-quality content. Reviewers contributed 2295 reviews, averaging an impressive quality score of 4.75 (out of 6). We especially recognize the 443 reviewers who completed more than one review. We commend the 381 top reviewers who performed at least two reviews in 2024, returned them within 7 days, and consistently received high-quality scores. Your commitment is exemplary.
The global reach of JGIM is reflected in our diverse reviewer pool, representing 34 countries. While most reviews came from the United States, substantial contributions were received from numerous other countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada, and China.
JGIM continues to experience an increase in submissions in 2024, further highlighting the vital role of our reviewers. We deeply appreciate your flexibility and hard work in managing this increased volume.
We also acknowledge the invaluable contributions of our associate editors, who meticulously evaluate manuscripts and manage the peer review process. Their expertise and commitment are essential to JGIM’s success.
Peer review enhances the quality of published research,1,2,3,4 and we are grateful to our authors and reviewers for their shared commitment to this important process. If you are interested in becoming a JGIM reviewer, we encourage you to register on editorial manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/jgim/default2.aspx). Your expertise and contribution would be highly valued.
References
- Goodman SN, Berline J, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Int Med. 1994;121(1):11–21.
- Shattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas S, Cowling WR. Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals. J Nurs Sch. 2010;42(1):58–65.
- Wager E, Middleton P. Effects of technical editing in biomedical journals: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2821–4.Google Scholar
- Roberts JC, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. Effects of peer review and editing on the readability of articles published in Annals of Internal Medicine. JAMA;1994;272:119–2
Topic
JGIM
Author Descriptions
Northwell Health, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, NY, USA
Joseph Conigliaro MD, MPH
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
D. Michael Elnicki MD
University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, PA, USA
Lenny Lopez MD, MPH, MDiv
Share
Related Articles
Screening and Referral for Social Needs Among Veterans: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Abstract Background Healthcare-based social need screening and referral (S&R) among adult populations…
Developing and Applying the BE-FAIR Equity Framework to a Population Health Predictive Model: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study
Abstract Background Population health programs rely on healthcare predictive models to allocate…