Rughani and colleagues’ excellent paper1 in your May edition examined the readability of Scottish general practice websites (answer: not very). This naturally begs the question of what would happen if the same tests were applied to your own journal. I have used the Gunning FOG index for this (http://gunning-fog-index.com/): it was not used in the original article but has the inestimable advantage of being freely available online.
The first paragraph of the first editorial from May 2021 scores 18 on the index.2 The first two paragraphs of the first research article score 20.3. The first paragraph of the first ‘Life and Times’ article scores 18.3. The reading ability of the average university graduate is above 17. On this sample about three-quarters of UK adults would not be able to fully understand a BJGP article.3,4 Does this matter? The journal is aimed at people who have a degree — GPs. Yet what is the point of making medical journals ‘open access’ if most of our patients don’t know what they are reading? Is jargon justified by the complexity of the concepts that these neologisms refer to? Or could we be accused of an unnecessary complication of words and grammar, and pomposity of language, simply to confuse the laity and promote the status of the profession? [Author’s note: FOG index of this letter is 11.6.]
- © British Journal of General Practice 2021
