Good journal, bad podcast
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“It's a good journa; great articles and excellent popular interest pieces. Absolutely terrible narration. It's distractingly bad. I haven't listened in a year and really wish I could. Wish it were more like the Annals podcast; fun narration, interviews, etc”Read full review »
Impact Factor via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
01/30/11
More reviews of JAMA Editors' Summary
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“This journal is full of great info, but I found this podcast difficult to remain focused. It could be presented in a more entertaining way.”
littlebitofall via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
07/17/08
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Dr. De Angelis should put down the mic and let someone with real speaking skills do the job of podcasting. JAMA is an important journal and her cute, homey style is not appropriate. She lacks both presentation and organization skills. (For example, doesn't bother to correctly pronounce names...”Read full review »
your pal Al via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
05/21/06
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Great place for cardiology news. This podcast does feel, at times, “anti-innovation”, and the speaker does have a bias towards or against certain practices and treatments, but overall I appreciate the scepticism and really do applaud the hard work he puts in.”
Tomthebomb92 via Apple Podcasts ·
France ·
01/22/24
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Get Chartable Analytics »
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
Get Chartable Analytics »
See hourly chart positions and more than 30 days of history.
