Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Please indicate which comment is of concern and why. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.

Report comment to moderator

MandatoryRequired fields.

Headline

Editing The Pharmaceutical Journal

Comment

Had I been approached by "the undersigned" I would have gladly supported the thrust of their concerns. It seems to me that as a key membership benefit of the RPS the PJ must first and foremost recognise and support the needs and interests of members. With a wide cross-sectoral membership base comprising colleagues at all career stages this is a challenging remit, but by no means impossible. In fact I would suggest that it is essential. If the PJ is to continue to maintain relevancy it must focus on what its members consider relevant, which increasingly feels divergent from the views of its publisher. Like many of the signatories to this letter I have enjoyed an extremely interesting relationship with the PJ and its editors. I have both valued it and been frustrated by it - but the important underlying premise has always been that it was there to serve the interests of members (and, rightly, not just those of the RPS) and act as an extremely good communication channel through which all of those with an interest or involvement in the profession could contribute and learn. It has certainly, in my view, become more elitist and niche in its tone and content, and I suggest, as an unfortunate consequence, less relevant, accessible and interesting. I do not claim to have all the answers to these issues, but it seems to me that a good start would be to listen seriously to those with the best of intentions at heart, and to revisit the decision to focus on publication at the expense of an experienced and discerning editor - of which there have been several over the years. This is not about some misplaced reminiscing, or a nostalgic hankering for the past - rather it is about enhancing engagement, improving relevancy, and bringing together the RPS and the members on which it relies. Members who are looking for reasons to engage. Members who want to be the best they can be. Members who are the voices of the present and future. Members who wish to be heard, to be supported and to influence.

Posted date

10 FEB 2017

Posted time

21:40

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.