PJ Letters: The Journal

Home > PJ > Letters

The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7160 p191-193
11 August 2001

Letters

  The new NHS
  NHS Direct
  Pet medicines
  The Profession
  Primary care pharmacy
  Broken bulk rules
  Topical antihistamines
  The future
  Drug administration
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

The Journal (2 letters)

Rationalise distribution of paper copies

From Mr D. R. Sullivan, MRPharmS

I am writing to congratulate the staff at the PJ for their seemingly considerable efforts in giving PJ Online a complete facelift over the past few months. Every time I log on more improvements have been made. On my last visit I found the new and useful series index page for continuing education articles. All information contained on the site is clearly displayed and accessible, and so simple to use.

With such a fantastic web version of The Journal, it leads me to question why every pharmacist needs to receive a paper copy? My wife and I are both pharmacists — there are a lot of pharmacist marriages about — and therefore receive two copies every week. Consequently, we make frequent trips to the recycling centre to off-load piles of duplicated journals. In the past I have enquired whether it is possible to cancel my subscription or even divert it to someone more in need of a paper copy, such as educational institutions. However, I have been told that neither is possible. At a local branch level, we have been able to reduce our postage costs by identifying co-habitant pharmacists and sending one copy of each mailing instead of two. Surely it is now possible to rationalise the distribution of paper copies of The Journal likewise to only those who have no other access?

Danny Sullivan
Leicestershire and Rutland Branch,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

According to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Byelaws, The Pharmaceutical Journal is the means by which official notices of the Society are communicated to members. Individual members must, therefore, receive a personal copy.
—EDITOR

Where is our coat of arms?

From Mr D. J. Savage, MRPharmS, and Mrs M. I. Savage, MRPharmS

It is all too easy to dismiss any opposition to change as a function of advancing age or an unwillingness to be forward-thinking enough to accept the challenge of the future. The PJ of 7 July announced a revision of the publication’s format to coincide with the start of a new volume. There has been one unannounced change that we note with regret — the omission of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s coat of arms from the front cover after so many years.

Why have you stopped using our coat of arms on the front cover of the PJ? Are all things that might be seen as “traditional” to be rejected in a campaign to try anything to prove that we are a forward-looking profession eager to adapt to pharmacy practice in the 21st century?

We acknowledge that you still feature the coat of arms, in colour, at the foot of the page devoted to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, but we feel we should not lose the coat of arms from the front cover.

Whatever happened to consultation ?

John Savage
Margaret Savage
York

The Society’s coat of arms has recently been registered as a trade-mark with the words “Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain” integral to the design of the trade-mark. As a result no one is permitted to use the coat of arms alone. As we could not easily incorporate the full trade-mark in the masthead, we decided that using the full trade-mark twice in The Society section, and retaining the words “The Pharmaceutical Journal is the official journal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain” in the panel on the Notice-Board page would continue to emphasise the relationship between The Journal and the Society.

The decision not to use the coat of arms was taken out of our hands, and was definitely not intended to be a crude attempt to break with tradition.
—EDITOR

Previous Topic (Drug administration)
Send your letter to The Editor