Talk:The New England Journal of Medicine

Not strict open access
The NEJM is not a strict open access, so I removed the category. Some articles of the current issue are available for free, but the remainder of the issues back six months are by subscription only. Where does this fit with the Green/Gold methodolgy of OA ?Ericblazek 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

George Polk award
Is that some kind of joke, that the journal became popular/respectable after getting that award, as if it weren't already? Should that paragraph be removed? 67.117.130.181 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Error in Superlative Status?
Why do articles for the NEJM and JAMA both indicate that the respective journals are the most read/circulated? Surely there needs to either be further clarification or better and more accurate citations for at least one of these entries. (Another example of Wikipedia as a sub-par source for information these days...). Tatumstevens (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

painting seen in nejm
There is a rare piece of art shown or a quote (possibly as filler). I saw a painting several years ago that I am trying to track down. I have tried the website and google, but no luck. Does anyone know how I might be able to find it? Thanks. Hoover12345! (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

concern regarding primary sources
I see this article is flagged for including primary sources. Characterization of the import of an academic medical jourrnal appropriately includes it's history of publication of notable or pivotal primary research articles. These journals vie for being the journals of choice for high impact primary research. Academic journals import is quantified in various metrics and NEJM is, by many accounts, the highest "impact factor" medical journal. There is enough cloudiness about the gold standard for IF that I don't want to wade in editing regarding relative IFs Birdephant (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)