From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
SIR,-During August, 1998, the Council considered the Society's new organisational structure. Detailed consideration was also given to the position of The Pharmaceutical Journal and the status of the editor and the relationship between The Journal and the profession. The detailed report of the Council meeting (PJ, August 15, 1998, p229) stated: "Council approved some changes which acknowledged the concerns expressed by the membership . . . particularly in relation to the position of The Pharmaceutical Journal."
There followed an article by the then Secretary and Registrar (John Ferguson) which spelt out the position of the editor, who "will continue to have editorial freedom and the final say on all aspects of the content of the PJ", "will be managerially responsible to the Secretary and Registrar", and "will be entitled to attend and contribute to all senior management meetings . . . without compromising his or her editorial freedom".
I reproduce this here because it illustrates that a lengthy debate about the position of The Journal took place. A firm and, apparently, final Council decision was taken which both confirmed the independence of the editor and addressed the concerns of the membership. I had also expressed my concerns for editorial independence at that time, and following the PJ report wrote (PJ, August 22, 1998, p267): "While stopping short of censorship, the initial proposal seemed like the triumph of spin over editorial freedom. I was therefore heartened to read in last week's PJ of the Council's rethink. Democracy dictates that we should resist any emasculation of our (ie, the members') journal, which has always been independent of the Council, and has been strong enough to criticise the pharmacy establishment when it thought fit. Most importantly, The Journal is the voice of the grass roots pharmacist through its letter columns and Broad Spectrum. Long may it remain so."
Thus I was surprised and concerned to read (PJ, August 12, p229) that the Officers are to set up a small task force to examine the post of editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal before the Society appoints a successor to the previous editor, Mr Douglas Simpson, who has just taken early retirement.
I find it very hard to understand why it is appropriate or necessary, only two years on, to re-examine the situation. I know that the President will be aware that it is not best practice to continually revisit policy that has been thoroughly discussed, aired and agreed unless there is an overwhelming change in the circumstances, or the policy has proven to be unworkable in practice. I do not believe either to be the case here.
According to the same report, several other members of Council are suspicious of the motivation behind this review, and are concerned that this is a back-door attempt to demote the editor and reintroduce the original plan for the editor to be accountable to a lay publisher.
I was very pleased to read the recent open letter from the President to the membership (PJ, August 26, p292), which reaffirmed her commitment to improving transparency and openness at Lambeth. However, actions speak louder than words. Therefore, on behalf of the membership I would like to ask: What is the justification for this policy review? What are the terms of reference for the working party? How will the review be conducted? Will the debate be in the public domain? Will the views of the membership be sought, and how?
Graham Phillips
Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire