It is a question that many in the medical field have grappled with for decades.
The journal of neurology, known as JAMA, has a history of producing the highest-profile journal articles ever, and now it is in trouble.
The article, published by the Journal of Neuroscience in late November, raised a lot of questions about the quality of science and research in the field.
It also raised questions about how best to stop this kind of research from happening.
One thing that struck me is that it was a piece of research that was published in a prestigious medical journal.
JAMA has long been regarded as a prestigious, high-profile research journal that is highly regarded and that is not about to get any less prestigious in the next few years.
But it is also a journal that has long had a reputation for being a place where the research is published in peer-reviewed journals.
In the early 1990s, the Journal was not really a high-ranking journal in that regard.
But then, as we know, the internet opened up and people started writing articles for JAMA.
So, this was a huge opportunity to publish high-impact research in a journal.
There was a lack of transparency at JAMA The JAMA article did not appear in a peer-review journal.
The paper was published by a non-JAMA journal called Science.
Science is a publication that has a reputation as an objective, objective scientific journal that can be trusted.
It is one of the largest and most influential scientific journals in the world.
Jama’s editors did not take any steps to make sure that the paper was not just a bunch of pseudoscience.
It had no peer review process, no review editors or editors at the top of the scientific hierarchy.
What it did have was the ability to publish whatever research they wanted.
They were able to publish it, and it was published.
The fact that it had no review process was a major issue.
I think what people are going to remember is that the review process at Science was incredibly short.
There were no peer reviews, and the only way that anyone can know that the work was peer reviewed is by looking at the title of the article.
And it was the only thing that JAMA was publishing that was a paper in a high profile scientific journal.
Science editors were very, very quick to see that the journal was not peer reviewed and remove the paper from publication.
I was at JMA the day that they did this.
When I went to the editor of Science, I was in tears.
I said, “What the hell is happening to this journal?”
They said, it’s a real issue.
It’s not a real scientific journal, and we want to protect the integrity of the journal.
They said that they would be working on a review.
And the review was completed in the following two weeks.
I remember saying to them, “I hope that the JAMA review of the JBS study is as complete as it can possibly be.”
The fact is that that review was very, unprofessional.
It was a complete shakedown.
It did not have any review or editor in it.
The authors of the paper, the journal’s own authors, who had been working on the paper themselves, did not even come forward and talk to the reviewers to say, “Hey, can we talk to you?
We’re really sorry about the way we did this.”
They simply said, this is what we did.
And they went ahead and published that paper.
What did that say about the integrity and credibility of the science that they were publishing?
That is what really bothered me.
There is no way for JMA to publish any kind of high-quality, high impact research, because it does not have the capacity to do that.
And that is where the problem really lies.
What does that mean for the rest of the world?
We know that this kind, high profile journal article is what has been going on in neuroscience.
There have been a lot more of these high-risk journal articles going around.
There has been a lack in the ability of the peer review community to properly evaluate the work that is being published.
So that is why, the most important thing is that we are going forward with a new, independent peer review body.
It has to be independent, because this kind is not just about JAMA anymore.
It does not mean that there are no peer reviewers.
They have a very limited range of criteria that they use when they are reviewing a paper, and they have to be very careful about what they do.
And in doing so, they are going against the spirit of the editorial process.
This is not a problem that is going to go away any time soon.
But, if we want the Jama review to be a fair, transparent, rigorous review, then we have to make it transparent.
This kind of shakedown of JAMA is a