_JAMA Neurology_ is one of the most prestigious journals in clinical neurology, with a recent impact factor around 20–21, placing it among the global top three in the field. However, its status brings strengths and limitations that should be critically evaluated.

• High visibility: The elevated impact factor ensures broad dissemination among neurologists and neuroscientists.
• Editorial rigor: Peer review is fast and detailed (average 3–4 weeks according to SciRev).
• Efficient publishing: Articles are often published online ahead of print, speeding dissemination.
• Author engagement: Includes author interviews, podcasts, and media visibility.
• Focus on cutting-edge topics: Regular publication of high-impact reviews, consensus statements, and original research.

• Citation-driven bias: As with many high-IF journals, editorial decisions may be shaped by citation potential.
• Limited methodological diversity: Replication studies, negative results, and regional data may be underrepresented.
• Industry influence risks: Potential conflicts of interest from funding sources require critical appraisal, despite formal disclosure policies.
• Impact factor inflation practices: The journal may (as many do) prioritize citable items like reviews, potentially distorting publication balance.

For authors: Target JAMA Neurology if your work is novel, broadly relevant, and of high methodological quality. For readers: Critically evaluate articles, especially industry-funded studies or those with extraordinary claims. Look beyond the impact factor—rigor and reproducibility matter more than prestige.