Submission Guidelines

Jewish Medical Ethics Annual Review (JMAR)

JMAR publishes three types of submissions: Reviews, Case Analyses, and Reflections. All explore the intersection of halacha, medical ethics, and clinical practice, but they differ in structure and purpose. Please review the relevant format below before submitting.

All submissions are made through our submission form. Questions can be directed to the editorial team via our contact form.

General Requirements (All Submissions)

• Length: 1,000–4,000 words, excluding footnotes and references.
• Citations: Numbered footnotes, in the style used throughout JMAR. Cite primary sources — Tanach, Talmud, Rambam, Shulchan Arukh, responsa, and related sources — and medical/scientific literature where relevant. Include enough bibliographic detail, such as source, volume, siman/se'if, or page, for a reader to locate the citation independently.
• Authorship: Include full name(s) and relevant credentials or affiliation, such as MD, rabbinic title, or institution, for each author.
• Abstract: A short summary of roughly 100–200 words is required for Reviews and Case Analyses. Reflections do not require a full abstract.
• Language: Transliterated Hebrew or Aramaic terms should be italicized on first use, such as halacha or pesak. Provide a brief English gloss where the term may be unfamiliar to a clinical readership.
• Original work: Submissions should not be under review or previously published elsewhere.

Format 1: Review

Reviews examine a halachic, ethical, or clinical question in depth — surveying relevant sources, rabbinic opinions, and/or medical literature to illuminate the issue. This is the format used for most JMAR articles.

Structure

1. Abstract: A brief summary stating the question being addressed, what the piece explores to answer it, and, if relevant, the conclusion reached. This should let a reader understand the article's contribution in a few sentences without reading further.
2. Introduction: Frame the question or tension the article addresses. Establish why it matters — clinically, halachically, or both — and orient the reader to the scope of what follows.
3. Body: The core exploration of the topic. Structure is at the author's discretion, but the body should be broken into clearly labeled subheadings that guide the reader through the argument, such as by source, sub-question, chronological development of the halacha, or competing positions. Avoid a single undivided block of text — subheadings are required for pieces of this length.
4. Conclusion: A closing statement that summarizes the position reached, notes any remaining ambiguity or dependence on circumstance, and, where appropriate, offers practical takeaways for clinicians, rabbis, or patients.

Format 2: Case Analysis

Case Analyses examine a specific real or realistic clinical scenario that raises a halachic or ethical question, walking through how that question was — or should be — approached and resolved. This format is more grounded in a concrete situation than a Review, and is especially useful for illustrating how general principles apply in practice.

Structure

1. Abstract: A brief summary of 100–200 words stating the nature of the case, the central halachic or ethical question it raised, and the resolution or outcome.
2. Introduction: Briefly frame the type of question this case illustrates, and why a case-based approach is useful here.
3. Case Presentation: Present the relevant facts: clinical background, timeline, and the specific decision point(s) that raised a halachic or ethical question. Identifying details should be altered or generalized to protect patient privacy; this should be noted explicitly, for example: “details have been modified to preserve confidentiality.”
4. Halachic/Ethical Question: State plainly what question the case raises, framed precisely enough that a reader unfamiliar with the case could understand what is actually being asked.
5. Discussion: Analyze the question using relevant halachic sources, rabbinic opinions, and/or medical-ethical literature. As with Reviews, this section may use subheadings if it covers multiple distinct sources or lines of reasoning. Note where authorities disagree, and where the clinical specifics of the case affected the analysis.
6. Resolution / Outcome: Describe how the question was, or if hypothetical would be, resolved, and the reasoning that supported that resolution.
7. Conclusion / Teaching Points: Close with the broader lesson(s) the case offers — what it teaches readers about how to approach similar situations, and any caveats about how far the resolution generalizes beyond this specific case.

Format 3: Reflection

Reflections are personal, essayistic pieces — on an experience, encounter, or insight at the intersection of Jewish life and medicine. Unlike Reviews and Case Analyses, Reflections are not primarily source-driven arguments; they are a space for a physician's, rabbi's, or scholar's own voice and perspective. Structure is intentionally loose and left to the author, but a few anchors may help:

• A grounding moment. Most Reflections open with something concrete — a patient encounter, a conversation, a moment in practice or study — that the piece is reflecting on.
• The reflection itself. What did this moment raise, complicate, or clarify for you? This is the heart of the piece, and can move freely rather than following a fixed argument structure.
• Where it leaves you. Reflections do not need a resolved conclusion in the way a Review does, but should leave the reader with some sense of where the author landed, or what remains open.

Practical notes for Reflections

• An abstract is not required, though a one- or two-line framing note at the top is welcome if it helps orient the reader.
• Sourcing is optional. Reflections may reference halachic sources, but are not required to build a sourced argument the way a Review or Case Analysis does.
• Reflections may run shorter than other formats — pieces as short as 500 words are welcome, up to the standard 4,000-word ceiling.
• If the piece touches on a specific patient encounter, identifying details should be altered or generalized to protect confidentiality, as with Case Analyses.

Suggested Citation Format

Submissions should include a suggested citation line at the end of the article, following JMAR's existing convention:

“[Article Title].” Jewish Medical Ethics Annual Review, [Year].

Submission Process

1. Prepare your manuscript according to the format above.
2. Submit via the JMAR submission form.
3. Submissions are reviewed by the JMAR editorial team; you may be contacted with questions or requested revisions before publication.

Ready to submit? Open the submission form →

Have questions before submitting? Contact the editorial team.