About ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives
The National Academy of Medicine’s ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ 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 ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ’s mission. ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives’ ISSN is 2578-6865.
·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives is a journal of the National Academy of Medicine (·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ) that features individually authored papers offering expert insight into urgent and emerging issues in health, medicine, biomedical science, and health policy. The journal supports the advancement of the ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ’s mission by providing a venue for timely, forward-thinking ideas from leaders across disciplines.
This page provides essential information about ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives, including its publication formats, editorial process, and authorship policies.
The journal publishes three types of papers:
Commentaries are concise, op-ed style pieces (typically 1,500–2,500 words) that present a distinct viewpoint or call to action. Commentaries are reviewed by the ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives Editorial Board and do not undergo external peer review. Submissions are limited to five authors.
Discussion Papers are in-depth, evidence-informed analyses (2,500–10,000 words) that explore complex challenges or opportunities and offer strategic options or frameworks. These papers are reviewed by the Editorial Board and undergo single-blind external peer review. There is no limit on the number of authors.
Discussion Proceedings summarize key themes and insights from ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ-hosted workshops and convenings. These papers are generated by members of the ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ community and are not open for outside submission. All Discussion Proceedings are approved by a designated member of the ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Executive Team and undergo peer review.
All ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives papers are individually authored and do not represent the official positions of the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, or the authors’ affiliated organizations.
·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives Editorial Board Members
- Victor Dzau, MD – President, National Academy of Medicine
- Michael McGinnis, MD, MA, MPP – Executive Officer, National Academy of Medicine
- Kimber Bogard, PhD – Deputy Executive Officer for Programs, National Academy of Medicine
- Samantha Chao – Associate Executive Director, Health and Medicine Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
- Gregg Margolis, PhD – Director, Fellowships Program, National Academy of Medicine
- Se Kim, PhD – Director, Membership and Governance, National Academy of Medicine
To contact ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives staff, please email [email protected].
Information for Authors
·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives welcomes submissions from individuals with relevant expertise in health, medicine, biomedical science, and related policy areas. Papers must be individually authored and written for an informed, non-specialist audience.
Authors are expected to:
- Maintain a clear, well-reasoned argument supported by evidence
- Ensure balance in both topic framing and authorship composition
- Avoid promotional languageÂ
Before submitting, authors must:
- Format their manuscript using official ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives templates
- Complete and submit an for each author
- Confirm that all figures and tables are either original, in the public domain, or properly licensed for use
Detailed author guidelines, templates, and submission resources are available in the ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives Author Toolkit. When ready, authors should submit their manuscript via .
Submission and Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives undergo editorial and, when applicable, peer review to ensure clarity, integrity, and alignment with the journal’s purpose.
After a paper is submitted via , ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ editorial staff conduct an initial red flag review, evaluating clarity of argument, appropriateness for the journal, writing quality, formatting, authorship balance, and potential conflicts of interest. Submissions that do not meet required standards or format guidelines will be returned for revision.
Depending on paper type, submissions then follow one of three editorial tracks:
Commentaries are reviewed and approved by the ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives Editorial Board. They do not undergo peer review and move directly into copyediting once approved.
Discussion Papers are reviewed by the Editorial Board and must also undergo external, single-blind peer review. ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ staff select 2–4 expert reviewers based on topic relevance and disciplinary balance. Authors are required to respond to reviewer feedback before a final decision is made.
Discussion Proceedings are developed by members of the ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ community and must be approved by a designated member of the ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Executive Team. These papers undergo external peer review by two reviewers—one of whom must have participated in the meeting being summarized.
All accepted papers are professionally copyedited, reviewed for potential plagiarism using , and finalized in collaboration with the authors before publication.
Research Misconduct and Ethics
·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives‘ approach to handling potential research misconduct closely mirrors the approach outlined by the .
·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives expects that all submissions are free of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism as defined by the . In cases of suspected or alleged misconduct, ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives follows the recommended procedures from .
·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives utilizes iThenticate to screen manuscripts for potential text duplication.Ìý·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives will also evaluate and investigate issues that are brought to our direct attention and may request additional data from authors.Ìý·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives may discuss these concerns with the Editorial Board or with the authors.
Authors must place direct quotes or excerpts in quotation marks and must identify the original source reference(s). For overlapping passages that aren’t verbatim, authors must include the original source reference(s).
Corrections and Retractions
Any concerns about the accuracy of manuscripts published by ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ Perspectives should be directed to [email protected]. 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 ·¬ÇÑÊÓƵ 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.
