One of the pleasures of being an honorary fellow of the College is that I receive a copy of the Journal, and, although deluged like everybody else with written material, I read it. I was an editor for 25 years, and as such I have a few observations on the Journal that may prompt some useful thoughts.
First, I notice that your editorial board has 17 members (assuming that you and your deputy are members), and yet there are only two women. Surely this is an embarrassingly low number. Judging by the names, I think that only one member comes from an ethnic minority. You are failing to reflect British general practice. I suggest that you scrap your board and make a fresh start. As I discovered, copying Margaret Thatcher in her abolition of the Greater London Council, it is easier to get rid of the whole lot than just one or two.
Secondly, I'm impressed that in your Editor's Briefing you have managed to make safety-net a verb. Truly there is no noun that can't be verbed.
Thirdly, what is the ‘neo-liberal London consensus’, which Calum Paton writes about?1 This reminds me of my days as a communist, but I suggest that it is a figment of Paton's imagination. He also refers to GPs being ‘sold the dream of power only to find it has become responsibility’. But did any GP think it possible to have power without responsibility? I can't think so. In short, I think that this article would have benefited from tighter editing.
Fourth, the word cloud of the Journal contents is very interesting, but what may matter most is what's not there. Rob Atenstaedt notices the absence of any mention of countries outside the UK,2 and I noticed the absence of safety, internet, comorbidity, and commissioning.
- © British Journal of General Practice 2012