JAMA 'With Editor': What the Editorial Screen Means

JAMA's instructions say all submitted manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the editors, who evaluate whether the material is original and timely, the writing is clear, the study methods are appropriate, the data are valid, the conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data, the information is important, and the topic has general interest to readers of the journal. Manuscripts with insufficient priority for publication are rejected promptly; other manuscripts are sent to expert consultants for peer review.

JAMA does not publish how editorial responsibilities are divided among the editor in chief, deputy editors, and associate editors, whether a separate statistical review is applied at the screen, or what share of manuscripts is flagged for reporting problems, so treat any such figure as unverified.

JAMA accepts 10% of its submissions, so papers that clear the initial editor review have passed a steep filter, and the decision then shifts from "does a general-medicine reader care" to "are the clinical findings sound."

"With Editor" is the stage where a prompt rejection can happen, before any external reviewer is involved. The editors evaluate whether the paper meets JAMA's published criteria, including whether the topic has general interest to readers of the journal and the information is important.

In our pre-submission work, a desk rejection at this screen most often means the paper is excellent for a subspecialty audience (cardiology, oncology, neurology, infectious disease) but does not explain why the JAMA general-medicine reader should change interpretation, policy, screening, diagnosis, or treatment, or that the reporting package looked incomplete.

None of this is a referee judgment; it is the editors reading the abstract and first page and asking whether a general clinical audience should care, and whether the methods and reporting are trustworthy.

JAMA asks for a Word manuscript with a title page, abstract, text, references, and as appropriate figure legends and tables, plus a cover letter. For clinical trials, the package also needs the trial protocol with the complete statistical analysis plan, the CONSORT flow diagram and checklist, trial registration, and a Data Sharing Statement; for observational studies and reviews, the matching STROBE or PRISMA reporting guideline applies. After submission, every author is emailed a link to the Authorship Form, which collects conflict-of-interest disclosures and the publishing agreement.

This is the core of the "With Editor" stage. JAMA's published median time to a first decision without external peer review is 2 days, so clearly-out-of-scope work can be returned very quickly. Manuscripts that go to external review have a published median first decision of 24 days.

JAMA's published instructions do not describe an associate-editor consultation step or a separate statistical review at the screen, or how long either would add. If your status sits at "With Editor" beyond the first days, the published information does not tell you why; it does not by itself indicate a rejection.

JAMA does not publish how many reviewers it invites or how long recruitment takes. Manuscripts that are not rejected promptly are sent to expert consultants for peer review. Submission systems do not always show reviewer recruitment as a distinct status, so a label that lingers at "With Editor" can reflect this step rather than an unfinished screen.

The "With Editor" stage ends when the editors either return the paper (reject), refer it to a JAMA Network journal if you preselected referral at submission, or send it for external review. The portal label changing to an under-review state is the clearest signal that the paper cleared the initial editor review.

• Return within days: Consistent with JAMA's 2-day median for decisions without external review; often a general-medicine readership fit judgment.

• Still With Editor at 2 to 3 weeks: Not a published warning sign; the paper may be moving toward external review. Not a reject signal by itself.

• Still With Editor past 6 weeks: A polite inquiry through the submission system, referencing your manuscript number, is appropriate.

• Status moves to Under Review: The paper cleared the initial editor review and went to external peer review.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from JAMA authors during the editorial-screening window. The honest answer: no. Two weeks is past JAMA's published 2-day median for decisions without external review, but JAMA does not publish a distribution or the reasons for longer waits, and the manuscript may be moving toward external review.

The portal does not break out why a manuscript is still with an editor. That is not, by itself, a sign of a pending desk reject.

What you should NOT do during the first 6 weeks at "With Editor" is email the editorial office; frequent inquiries add friction without accelerating the decision. If the status still reads "With Editor" past 6 weeks, a single polite one-line inquiry referencing the manuscript number is reasonable.

• Do not email the editorial office during the first 6 weeks unless an urgent ethics issue surfaces.

• Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is With Editor at JAMA; JAMA considers manuscripts on the understanding that they are not under consideration by another publication.

• Confirm the abstract states the general-medicine implication before the specialty-specific nuance, because general-medicine fit is the most common desk-rejection reason.

• Confirm the CONSORT, STROBE, or PRISMA checklist points to specific Methods paragraphs, tables, and figures rather than vague "see Methods" language, since JAMA says checklists are used during review.

• Prepare a JAMA Network fallback plan (JAMA Network Open, JAMA Internal Medicine, a JAMA specialty journal) in case the editor recommends transfer at the screen.

If your JAMA paper is returned at the "With Editor" screen rather than sent to referees, the cascade depends on what the editorial team cited:

JAMA Network Open is the natural JAMA Network open-access cascade for clinical-research papers where the general-medicine readership fit of the flagship is not met but the rigor is high; JAMA Network lets authors preselect referral at submission, with reviewers' comments if available (at the screen stage, no reports exist yet).

JAMA Internal Medicine is the JAMA Network cascade for internal-medicine-focused clinical-research papers.

JAMA specialty journals (JAMA Cardiology, JAMA Oncology, JAMA Neurology, JAMA Pediatrics) are JAMA Network cascades where the specialty editorial scope fits.

NEJM is the external general-medicine cascade for top-tier evidence-changes-practice clinical research, and The Lancet and BMJ are external general-medicine cascades. These journals operate independently from JAMA Network; assessments do not transfer.

No peer reviewer has judged the study yet; "With Editor" is an editorial screen against four criteria. The table maps each criterion to what you can confirm while you wait.

Across JAMA manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent editorial-screen concerns and the most common reasons a paper is returned at the "With Editor" stage before any referee is invited. The practical question during the screen is whether the abstract, introduction, Methods, CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA checklist, statistical analysis plan, and data-sharing statement already make general-medicine readiness and statistical trustworthiness auditable.

JAMA's public guidance explains the review process; the Manusights layer is the manuscript-level pattern, what a waiting author can strengthen before the editors decide.

JAMA specialty-only framing flagged at the initial editor review. In JAMA manuscripts, the introduction and abstract sometimes frame an excellent cardiology, oncology, neurology, or infectious-disease result without explaining why the JAMA general-medicine reader should change interpretation, policy, screening, diagnosis, or treatment. The clinical question may be strong, yet the manuscript still reads to a subspecialty because the triage does not see general-medicine relevance.

During the "With Editor" wait, check whether the abstract and first page state the broader clinical implication. If only the cover letter makes the general-medicine argument, the screen package is fragile because the cover letter is not what the editors weigh most heavily.

Check whether your JAMA framing reaches a general-medicine reader→

JAMA reporting-checklist and statistics gaps that surface during review. In JAMA manuscripts, an incomplete CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, or ARRIVE checklist, items that say "see Methods" without actual Methods coverage, unclear prespecified outcomes, missing-data handling, multiplicity adjustment, trial-registration timing, or subgroup-analysis logic can draw early editorial or reviewer concern. The weak point is rarely an ignored checklist name.

It is that editors and reviewers cannot trace each checklist entry to a specific Methods paragraph, table, or figure. If the manuscript is With Editor, use the wait to turn the checklist into a precise map so the paper is ready the moment the screen passes.

Check whether your JAMA checklist and statistics package are complete→

JAMA Network transfer logic that ends the screen in a redirect. In JAMA manuscripts, a rigorous paper may receive a transfer recommendation to JAMA Network Open or a JAMA specialty journal if the editors conclude at the screen that the work is sound but the general-medicine readership fit of the flagship is not met. Authors lose time when they treat that as failure instead of mapping the likely route.

Before the screen ends, identify whether the issue is audience fit (which cascades well) or methods readiness (which needs repair before transfer), and build a transfer-ready response file. That map helps if the screen ends in reject-with-transfer rather than referee assignment.

Check whether your JAMA Network cascade plan is screen-ready→

This guide tells you what JAMA editors look for while the manuscript is being screened. The review tells you whether your paper passes that editorial screen before the decision arrives. We have reviewed manuscripts targeting JAMA and peer general-medicine venues; the named patterns above are the same ones editors and reviewers flag during the screen. 60-day money-back guarantee. Your manuscript is not used for model training, and access is limited to the review workflow.

This page helps JAMA authors turn a static With Editor label into a concrete screening-window plan: check the general-medicine framing, CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA checklist, statistical-analysis plan, data-sharing statement, and likely JAMA Network fallback before the editorial team finishes the screen.

Of the manuscripts our team reviewed for this JAMA status-page pattern sample, the strongest screening-window signal was whether the abstract and checklist made general-medicine readiness and statistical trustworthiness visible before the senior editorial discussion had to reconstruct them from the Methods.

This page was created from:

• JAMA's public Instructions for Authors at Jamanetwork author instructions

• JAMA Network editorial documentation (more than 12,700 submissions/year, 10% acceptance, 4% research acceptance, median 2 and 24 days to first decision)

• a live review of public search results for "jama with editor" queries in June 2026 (where the ranking results were generic cross-journal "with editor" explainers from author-services sites rather than JAMA-specific timing)

• Manusights pre-submission review experience with JAMA-targeted manuscripts.

Source limitation: JAMA public materials explain the author requirements and editorial model, but they do not expose editor notes, reviewer comments, or reviewer-invitation timing for a specific manuscript. In practical author terms, the useful task during the "With Editor" wait is to connect the screen to general-medicine framing, reporting-checklist completeness, statistical-analysis readiness, and JAMA Network transfer planning you can prepare before the editors decide.

For the JAMA Network landscape beyond the flagship, see JAMA Network Open (open-access cascade), JAMA Internal Medicine (internal-medicine specialty), JAMA specialty journals (JAMA Cardiology, JAMA Oncology, JAMA Neurology, JAMA Pediatrics), and external general-medicine alternatives (NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine).

Once your paper clears the "With Editor" screen, the next status is reviewer assignment; the JAMA Under Review guide covers what happens once the paper goes to external review.

Editors screen manuscripts before any external reviewer sees them, and the "With Editor" stage is where that triage happens. Preparing a response template that addresses general-medicine relevance, statistical methodology, and CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA compliance accelerates revision rounds substantially once the screen passes.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the JAMA general-medicine-relevance-plus-checklist-rigor bar before the editorial screen, our JAMA pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and checklist-compliance weaknesses most likely to stall a paper at "With Editor."