PJ Online

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

	The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 268 No 7196 p611-613 4 May 2002	This page Reprint Photocopy
		PDF* 65K

Letters

  CPD
  Clinical governance
  Checking technicians
  Community pharmacy
  The Profession
  Council elections
  The Society
  Society fellows
  PJ Online

Letters to the Editor

* PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

Does PJ Online negate the need for The Journal?

From Dr T. C. Hamilton, MRPharmS

The positive comments from Tim Saunders (PJ, 27 April, p572) concerning the attributes of PJ Online reflect my own views. First, for those members abroad who wait three months to receive The Journal, and have access to PJ Online, what is the point in posting The Journal to these members? Secondly, for any member such as myself who has access to PJ Online at home (or at their business), it is not necessary to receive The Journal.

Cost savings should be achieved by offering members the option of whether or not to receive the paper copy. In addition, members should be given a discount on their annual membership fee to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. If, as I suspect, access to PJ Online is free to all interested readers whether they are members of the Society or not, then I suggest that limited access should be available to the general public unless the individual commits to a subscription to the online version.

Each week The Journal contains a limited number of articles of genuine interest to me, but I particularly dislike the high number of pages devoted to advertisements. For example, the issue of 27 April contains 43 pages of advertisements and fewer (39) pages of editorial material. Admittedly, a few of these advertisements contain useful information about new products but most are for recruitment. Although the latter may provide some amusement about the claims being made in the job descriptions, I find it difficult to accept that each week I am compelled to receive The Journal containing all of these advertisements. Obviously these adverts are invaluable to job seekers, and presumably provide an important source of revenue for The Journal, but I suggest that members should be able to decline The Journal in favour of PJ Online.

Tom Hamilton
Bishop's Stortford, Hertfordshire

The Pharmaceutical Journal, as the official publication of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, has to be sent to all members in order that they receive information about the Society's business. Moreover, The Journal has to be sent to a pharmacist's registered address to ensure that the official notices are received (as enshrined in the bye-laws). Although web technology is becoming increasingly sophisticated, the Society cannot guarantee that an official notice has been received if an individual does not receive The Journal but uses PJ Online instead.

Members of the Society who live abroad pay a reduced retention fee and are able, upon payment of a supplement of Ł35 per year, to have their Journals sent on a priority basis.

We are sorry that Mr Hamilton objects to the volume of advertising that is carried by The Journal. Not only does it make The Journal a highly successful commercial publication, it also contributes substantially to the Society's coffers; without it the retention fee would have to be significantly higher. Wherever possible we try to ensure that the advertising/editorial ratio is no more than 50/50. However, some weeks there is much more advertising than has been envisaged and sometimes there is not always enough high quality editorial material ready for publication to maintain the editorial/advertising ratio.
— EDITOR

Previous Topic (Society fellows)
Send your letter to The Editor