What is the impact factor of JAMA Cardiology?

JAMA Cardiology has an impact factor of 15.6 (2024). This places it among the top-tier journals in its field with JAMA Cardiology focuses on original clinical research that directly informs cardiovascular practice.

How long does JAMA Cardiology take to review?

JAMA Cardiology typically takes 14-21 days to first decision. The full review process involves 6 main stages: prepare manuscript according to jama network formatting, complete relevant reporting checklist, and peer review.

All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

JAMA Cardiology Impact Factor 15.6: Publishing Guide

Q: What is the acceptance rate of JAMA Cardiology?

JAMA Cardiology has an acceptance rate of ~8%. A common reason for rejection is submitting surrogate endpoint studies as if they're definitive. JAMA Cardiology sees too many papers where authors equate a reduction in LDL cholesterol or blood pressure with reduced cardiovascular events. The editors understand that surrogate endpoints can inform mechanism and generate hypotheses, but they won't accept these studies unless the surrogate is well-validated and the clinical context makes the findings immediately actionable. If your primary outcome is a biomarker, you need to make a compelling case for why physicians should care now, not after another decade of outcomes trials.

Q: Is JAMA Cardiology peer reviewed?

Yes, JAMA Cardiology is fully peer reviewed. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review by Two to three external reviewers with relevant expertise evaluate your manuscript. They assess methodology, interpretation, and clinical relevance. Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations to the editor, who makes the final decision..

Q: What does JAMA Cardiology look for in submissions?

Practice-changing clinical trials: JAMA Cardiology prioritizes trials that will influence guidelines or change what physicians do. This means you need clinically meaningful primary endpoints, not just statistically significant biomarker changes. A trial showing a 15% relative reduction in a surrogate marker won't cut it unless that marker is strongly validated. The editors want to see hard endpoints: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization. If you're using a composite endpoint, each component should be clinically important on its own.

Q: What should I know before submitting to JAMA Cardiology?

Reference ongoing guidelines debates explicitly. If your paper addresses a question where ACC/AHA guidelines are uncertain or where practice varies by region, say so in your introduction. Editors prioritize papers that inform active guideline discussions. Knowing that the next guideline update is considering your intervention makes your paper more timely and relevant.

JAMA Cardiology doesn't want basic science dressed up as clinical relevance. It wants studies that will change what cardiologists do Monday morning. If your trial won't alter treatment guidelines or clinical decision-making, you're submitting to the wrong journal.

15.6

Impact Factor (2024)

~8%

Acceptance Rate

14-21 days to first decision

Time to First Decision

What JAMA Cardiology Publishes

JAMA Cardiology focuses on original clinical research that directly informs cardiovascular practice. That sounds obvious, but here's what it means in practice: editors want papers where the clinical implications are immediate and specific, not theoretical or distant. They're not interested in mechanistic studies unless those mechanisms directly explain why a treatment works or fails in patients. The journal covers the full spectrum of cardiovascular medicine, from prevention to intervention to outcomes, but there's a heavy bias toward randomized controlled trials, large observational cohort studies, and systematic reviews that synthesize actionable evidence. If you're doing translational work, you'll need a clear path to the bedside, not just promising preclinical data.

Randomized controlled trials testing cardiovascular interventions, devices, or drug therapies with clinically meaningful endpoints like mortality, hospitalization, or major adverse cardiac events.
Large observational studies using registries, claims data, or cohort databases that reveal practice patterns, outcomes disparities, or risk factors relevant to real-world patient populations.
Secondary analyses of major trials that answer clinically important questions the original study wasn't powered to address, provided the analysis plan is rigorous and prespecified.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that synthesize evidence on treatment decisions where practice varies or guidelines are uncertain, with GRADE-quality evidence assessment.
Health policy research examining cardiovascular care delivery, cost-effectiveness, or healthcare system factors that influence patient outcomes at scale.

Editor Insight

“I'll be direct about what we're looking for. Every submission I review, I ask myself: will this change what cardiologists do tomorrow? If the answer is 'maybe in five years' or 'for a small subset of patients,' that's usually not enough. We get papers from excellent research groups with perfect methodology, but the clinical question just isn't pressing. Those get rejected. What I want to see is a paper where I can immediately envision the guideline committee citing it, or a practicing cardiologist changing their approach. I desk-reject a lot of well-written papers that belong in specialty journals because they're too narrow. On the other hand, we're quite receptive to negative trials that answer important questions, large registry studies revealing practice gaps, and papers addressing health disparities. Don't assume we only want positive results. We want truth that matters.”

What JAMA Cardiology Editors Look For

Practice-changing clinical trials

JAMA Cardiology prioritizes trials that will influence guidelines or change what physicians do. This means you need clinically meaningful primary endpoints, not just statistically significant biomarker changes. A trial showing a 15% relative reduction in a surrogate marker won't cut it unless that marker is strongly validated. The editors want to see hard endpoints: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure hospitalization. If you're using a composite endpoint, each component should be clinically important on its own.

Rigorous methodology with transparent reporting

The journal follows CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA guidelines strictly. Don't submit unless you've completed the relevant checklist and can provide it. Editors desk-reject papers where the methods section doesn't allow replication or where key details are buried in supplementary materials. They want the randomization scheme, blinding procedures, and sample size calculation front and center. If you're doing an observational study, you'll need a clear description of how you handled confounding and selection bias.

Global relevance with diverse patient populations

There's increasing scrutiny of whether trial populations reflect the patients who'll actually receive the treatment. If your RCT enrolled mostly white men from academic medical centers, you'll need to address generalizability explicitly. The editors value studies that include underrepresented populations or that specifically examine whether treatment effects differ by race, sex, or socioeconomic status. Single-center studies from specialty referral centers face a higher bar than multicenter trials with community hospital sites.

Clear clinical implications stated directly

Your discussion section shouldn't require readers to infer the clinical implications. State them explicitly. What should change in practice based on your findings? Which patients benefit most? What's the number needed to treat? Editors reject papers where authors hedge so much that the clinical message gets lost. They want you to be appropriately confident about what your data show while being honest about limitations. Don't oversell, but don't undersell either.

Novel findings that fill evidence gaps

The journal doesn't need another paper confirming what we already know. Before submitting, ask: does this change our understanding or just reinforce it? Editors want papers that address questions where current evidence is weak, conflicting, or nonexistent. If you're studying a topic with 50 prior meta-analyses, you'd better have a genuinely new angle, new population, or new outcome. Incremental advances belong in specialty journals.

Why Papers Get Rejected

These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past JAMA Cardiology's editorial review:

Submitting surrogate endpoint studies as if they're definitive

JAMA Cardiology sees too many papers where authors equate a reduction in LDL cholesterol or blood pressure with reduced cardiovascular events. The editors understand that surrogate endpoints can inform mechanism and generate hypotheses, but they won't accept these studies unless the surrogate is well-validated and the clinical context makes the findings immediately actionable. If your primary outcome is a biomarker, you need to make a compelling case for why physicians should care now, not after another decade of outcomes trials.

Overstating the novelty of observational findings

Large database studies that confirm associations already established in RCTs don't add much. The editors see dozens of papers showing that smoking causes cardiovascular disease or that statins reduce events. Unless your observational study reveals something we couldn't learn from trials, like rare events, long-term outcomes, or real-world effectiveness versus efficacy, it won't survive initial review. You need to articulate what your observational design uniquely contributes.

Burying methodological problems in limitations sections

Experienced reviewers and editors know what to look for. If your trial had differential dropout, your observational study has residual confounding, or your meta-analysis combined heterogeneous interventions, acknowledging these in the limitations paragraph won't save you. Address these issues in the methods and results, showing how you handled them analytically. A limitations section isn't a confessional, it's a place for irreducible uncertainties, not fixable design flaws.

Writing for specialists in your subfield only

JAMA Cardiology's readership includes general cardiologists, internists, and cardiac surgeons across subspecialties. If your paper assumes familiarity with interventional cardiology jargon, electrophysiology techniques, or advanced imaging physics, you'll lose most readers. The editors want accessible prose that communicates findings to any physician. This doesn't mean dumbing down your science. It means explaining technical concepts briefly and focusing on what matters clinically.

Neglecting the 'so what' factor in the abstract

Many manuscripts get desk-rejected based on the abstract alone. Editors need to see, in 350 words or less, what question you asked, how you answered it rigorously, what you found, and why it matters for patient care. Abstracts that read like technical summaries without clinical context don't make the cut. Your conclusions should tell a busy clinician exactly what's actionable. Don't make them read the full paper to understand why they should care.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

The quick diagnostic reads your full manuscript against JAMA Cardiology's criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from JAMA Cardiology Authors

Reference ongoing guidelines debates explicitly

If your paper addresses a question where ACC/AHA guidelines are uncertain or where practice varies by region, say so in your introduction. Editors prioritize papers that inform active guideline discussions. Knowing that the next guideline update is considering your intervention makes your paper more timely and relevant.

Preregistration is increasingly expected

For clinical trials, ClinicalTrials.gov registration is mandatory. But even for observational studies and systematic reviews, preregistration on platforms like PROSPERO or OSF signals rigor. Editors are more skeptical of unregistered studies, especially secondary analyses where outcome switching is easy to hide.

Consider submitting a Research Letter for important negative findings

Null results from well-designed trials still matter for clinical practice. If your trial didn't show benefit, it might fit better as a 600-word Research Letter than a full article. Editors appreciate brevity for findings that mainly update priors rather than generate new paradigms.

Include health economists or outcomes researchers as co-authors

Papers that address cost, value, or implementation alongside efficacy are increasingly favored. If you can show that your intervention is not only effective but also cost-effective or feasible to implement in resource-limited settings, you're more likely to get accepted. Clinician-only author lists sometimes signal a narrow focus.

The cover letter matters more than you think

Editors at JAMA Cardiology receive hundreds of submissions monthly. A well-crafted cover letter that explains why your paper fits the journal, what's novel, and what the clinical implications are can determine whether you get a fair review or a desk rejection. Don't just restate your abstract, sell the paper.

The JAMA Cardiology Submission Process

Prepare manuscript according to JAMA Network formatting

1-2 weeks before submission

Follow JAMA Network author instructions precisely, including structured abstract format, word limits, and reference style. JAMA Cardiology has specific requirements for trials, observational studies, and reviews. Missing elements like conflict of interest disclosures or author contribution statements will delay processing.

Complete relevant reporting checklist

During manuscript preparation

CONSORT for RCTs, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews. Upload the completed checklist with your submission. Incomplete checklists result in administrative rejection before editorial review begins.

Submit via JAMA Network manuscript submission system

Day of submission

Create an account or log in to the JAMA Network ScholarOne portal. Enter all co-author information, including ORCID identifiers. Upload your manuscript, figures, tables, supplementary materials, and cover letter as separate files according to specifications.

Editorial triage and initial decision

7-14 days

An editor reviews your submission for fit, novelty, and methodological rigor. About 60% of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage, typically within 7-14 days. If your paper passes triage, it enters peer review.

Peer review process

4-8 weeks

Two to three external reviewers with relevant expertise evaluate your manuscript. They assess methodology, interpretation, and clinical relevance. Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations to the editor, who makes the final decision.

Decision and revision

2-4 weeks for revision, 2-4 weeks for re-review

You'll receive accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Most accepted papers require revision. Address every reviewer comment point-by-point in your response letter. Be thorough but concise. Revised manuscripts undergo re-review, usually by the original reviewers.

JAMA Cardiology by the Numbers

2024 Impact Factor(Consistently among top 5 cardiovascular journals)	15.6
Acceptance Rate(High selectivity means most submissions are rejected editorially)	~8%
Time to First Decision(Fast editorial triage, longer for full peer review)	14-21 days
Time to Publication(From acceptance to online publication)	3-6 months
Altmetric Score (median)(High media attention for published articles)	>100
Open Access Option(CC-BY license, approximately $5,000 APC)	Available

Before you submit

JAMA Cardiology accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.

The pre-submission diagnostic runs a live literature search, scores your manuscript section by section, and gives you a prioritized fix list calibrated to JAMA Cardiology. ~30 minutes.

Run Free Readiness Scan See a sample report

Article Types

Original Investigation

3,000 words

Full-length research articles reporting primary data from clinical trials, observational studies, or secondary analyses. Must include structured abstract and follow relevant reporting guidelines.

Research Letter

600 words, 1 figure/table

Brief reports of preliminary findings, important negative results, or focused observations. Useful for timely communication of smaller but significant datasets.

Review

4,000 words

Invited or commissioned systematic reviews and clinical reviews synthesizing evidence on important topics. Most reviews are solicited by editors, but queries are welcome.

Viewpoint

1,200 words

Opinion pieces on clinical practice, health policy, or controversies in cardiovascular medicine. Should present a clear argument with supporting evidence.

Editorial

1,000 words

Invited commentaries accompanying published articles. Provide context, interpretation, and implications for the featured research.

Landmark JAMA Cardiology Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

Solomon et al., 2019 - Reported results of PARAGON-HF trial testing sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
Bhatt et al., 2020 - Published REDUCE-IT echocardiographic substudy showing icosapent ethyl effects on ventricular function in high-risk patients
Zeitouni et al., 2020 - Demonstrated colchicine's anti-inflammatory effects in patients post-myocardial infarction from COLCOT trial
Kwong et al., 2018 - Linked influenza infection to acute myocardial infarction risk in case-series crossover design, establishing infection as trigger
Packer et al., 2019 - Analyzed EMPEROR trials data on empagliflozin in heart failure outcomes, showing benefit across ejection fractions

Preparing a JAMA Cardiology Submission?

Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in JAMA Cardiology and know exactly what editors look for.

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? Human review from $1,000

NDA-protected

Confidential

Primary Fields

Coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromesHeart failure and cardiomyopathiesCardiac arrhythmias and electrophysiologyStructural and valvular heart diseaseCardiovascular prevention and risk factorsHypertension and vascular diseaseCardiac imaging and diagnosticsInterventional cardiologyCardiovascular outcomes and quality improvementHealth equity in cardiovascular care

Related Journal Guides

All journal guides

All articles

Ready to submit to JAMA Cardiology?

A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what JAMA Cardiology editors look for.

Need field-expert depth? Human review from $1,000