About NAM Perspectives
The National Academy of Medicine’s NAM Perspectives periodical provides a venue for leading health, medical, science, and policy experts to reflect on issues and opportunities important to the advancement of the NAM’s mission. NAM Perspectives’ ISSN is 2578-6865.
Papers published in NAM Perspectives are individually authored and do not reflect consensus positions of the NAM, the National Academies, or the authors’ organizations. Papers published in NAM Perspectives are not reports of the National Academies. All submissions to NAM Perspectives should be accessible to a broad audience.
NAM Perspectives publishes two types of papers: Commentaries and Discussion Papers.
Commentaries are op-ed length papers on topical issues of prominence to health, medicine, biomedical science, and related policy. Their aim is to describe the key elements shaping an issue, succinctly summarize the nature of the evidence base, and offer a distinct and clear viewpoint on strategies and priorities. They may present illustrative experiences or anecdotes. Generally, Commentaries are undertaken by invitation or agreement of the NAM, authored by less than 5 authors, are around 1,500 words, and can include up to approximately 5 supportive references.
Discussion Papers are article-length reviews of issues of prominence or emerging prominence to health, medicine, biomedical science, and related policy. Their aim is to define and fully describe the key elements shaping an issue, summarize and assess the nature of the evidence base, and present a strategy or priority options for addressing the issue. Any opinions or anecdotal information shared must be consistent with the evidence base. Generally, Discussion Papers are undertaken by invitation or agreement of the NAM, may have an unlimited number of authors, are between approximately 2,500 and 10,000 words in length, and may include as many references as are reasonable and necessary to support a nuanced argument. All discussion papers published in NAM Perspectives undergo external, single-blind peer review.
NAM Perspectives Editorial Board Members
- Victor Dzau, MD – President, National Academy of Medicine
- Michael McGinnis, MD, MA, MPP – Executive Officer, National Academy of Medicine
- Clyde Behney, PhD – Executive Director, Health and Medicine Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
- Anne-Marie Mazza, PhD – Director, Policy Portfolio, Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
- Gregg Margolis, PhD – Director, Fellowships Program, National Academy of Medicine
- Elizabeth Prescott, DPhil – Director of Programs, National Academy of Medicine
Jenna Ogilvie, MFA – Managing Editor, NAM Perspectives | email@example.com | 202-334-1348
Information for Authors
Traditionally, papers published in NAM Perspectives relate to ongoing activities of the NAM or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), but NAM Perspectives will consider external submissions with relevance to an issue of importance to the NAM’s mission.
To submit a Commentary for consideration by the NAM Perspectives Editorial Board, email a draft to Jenna Ogilvie, Managing Editor of NAM Perspectives, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
If you are interested in submitting a Discussion Paper, you must first submit a concept (abstract and supporting information) for review by the NAM Perspectives Editorial Board. Please complete this form, and the Managing Editor will be in touch in 10-12 business days.
All authors are required to complete the ICMJE Conflict of Interest form, which discloses financial and non-financial conflicts of interest. All conflicts disclosed are published in the end matter of all NAM Perspectives manuscripts. NAM Perspectives utilizes iThenticate on all manuscript drafts to ensure integrity and detect plagiarism.
Submission and Review Process
After a Commentary draft or a Discussion Paper concept is submitted to the NAM Perspectives Managing Editor, the review process begins. Review of Commentaries is conducted by the Editorial Board and Managing Editor of NAM Perspectives. Commentaries are reviewed for appropriateness, strength of argument, and novelty of argument. Submitted drafts are also reviewed in tandem with conflict of interest forms submitted by the authors to ensure that the authorship is appropriately balanced. Any financial or other conflicts of interests will be disclosed within the manuscript. Commentaries do not undergo external peer review.
Discussion Papers undergo two stages of review: 1) concept review and 2) external peer review. At the concept review stage, an abstract and supporting information is reviewed by the Editorial Board and Managing Editor of NAM Perspectives for appropriateness, novelty of argument, state of the evidence base, and composition of authorship. After a concept is approved, the Managing Editor will invite submission of a complete draft. The paper then undergoes external peer review. The Managing Editor will secure 2-4 external peer reviewers, depending on the length and complexity of the manuscript. The Managing Editor ensures that peer reviewers have relevant expertise and are appropriately balanced to provide constructive comments. The process is single-blind, in that authors do not know the identity of reviewers, but reviewers know the identity of authors. The Managing Editor collects and anonymizes comments from peer reviewers and distributes them to authors for incorporation. Commentaries and Discussion Papers accepted for publication undergo professional copyediting facilitated by the NAM.
Corrections and Retractions
Any concerns about the accuracy of manuscripts published by NAM Perspectives should be directed to the Managing Editor at email@example.com. The Managing Editor will alert the Editorial Board to these concerns. The Editorial Board maintains final decision-making power about editorial corrections or retractions.
Should the occasion arise that a manuscript published by NAM Perspectives requires correction or must be retracted, the web page that contains the HTML version of the manuscript and the PDF version of the manuscript will both be clearly marked as corrected or retracted.
For corrections, the corrections will be marked clearly, on the original web page where the manuscript was published, in track changes or explained narratively, depending on what allows for better readability of the manuscript.
For retractions, depending on the severity of the errors contained within the original manuscript, the Editorial Board will decide whether a full retraction, a retraction with replacement, or a retraction with a republication are necessary. In any case, the web page on which the original article was published will be clearly marked and, if warranted, clearly labeled with directions to access the new or replacement manuscript.