The Journal

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 279 No 7467 p233
1 September 2007

This article
Reprint Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

• Retention fees (6)
• The industry
• The Journal (2)

Letters to the Editor

The Journal

PJ's purpose is not to act as a paternalistic gatekeeper (Mr A. R. Cox)

Reply from editor of The Pharmaceutical Journal

I don't believe it! (Mr R. M. Lightstone)

PJ's purpose is not to act as a paternalistic gatekeeper

From Mr A. R. Cox, MRPharmS

Your defence for not publishing the address of the “unofficial” petition about membership fees, because you wanted to encourage participation in an official consultation is totally unsatisfactory (PJ, 18 August, p179). The Pharmaceutical Journal’s purpose is to inform the membership, not to act as a paternalistic gatekeeper deciding what is and what is not suitable for members to take part in.

The Journal should be considered as the organ of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, but not a tool of the Council. Seven years ago, there was a battle to maintain editorial independence of The Journal from the Council on these very pages.¹

It is sad to reflect that what was argued strongly for then on the behalf of future editors of The Journal, has been so freely given away now.

Anthony Cox
Member of PJ Editorial Board 2001–03
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Reference

1. Cox A, Whitaker S. The Journal: Protecting the legacy (letter). Pharmaceutical Journal 2000;265:160.

“The Council, as a body, even though The Journal is accountable to it for its editorial content, has never sought to interfere with what we carry . … As far as The Journal is concerned, editorial freedom means that we have the right to publish what we want and the right to reject what we do not want without fear or favour” (PJ, 25 March 2006, pp359–60).

We chose not to publish the address to which Mr Cox refers for the reasons we stated. Our decision does not mean we have given away editorial freedom
— EDITOR

I don't believe it!

From Mr R. M. Lightstone, MRPharmS

I have just returned home from working away as a locum and settled down to read The Journal. Pharmacy is in turmoil — again — with the proposed 50 per cent rise in retention fees, the splitting of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the probability of losing limitation of contract and the general parlous state of the profession.

Against this backdrop, the cover picture and three pages inside are devoted to what not to wear (PJ, 18 August, pp181–2). As Victor Meldrew was wont to say — I don’t believe it!

Ralph Lightstone
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (The industry)