Singing the body electronicBMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7534.0-f (Published 19 January 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:0-f
All rapid responses
Two issues caught my attention.First,BMJ's invitation to readers to
express a choice as to the proposed cover designs, and secondly, the
demise of BMJUSA.
As for the BMJ's invitation,the question is, would the BMJ really
choose its new cover design, based on the majority view of the readers?
I am rather pessimistic because evidence suggests that BMJ does not
proceed on the majority opinion of its readers.In April 2000, in response
to a straw poll, the majority opinion was that the frequency and number of
rapid responses posted per person should not be restricted;did the BMJ
abide by that view?--no. Similarly, there is uproar about BMJ's decision
to charge for its content, depriving it to a large number of people in
some poorest parts of the world. Such concerns and protests also seem to
have fallen on deaf ears. So can we trust the BMJ's sincerity in relation
to this latest invitation to its readers? In short, could this be another
BMJUSA is not the first to be unsuccessful in the USA. Some may
recall Western Journal of Medicine suffered the same fate after a
relatively short spell. If Mr/Dr Delamothe is suggesting that BMJUSA
went down because the pharmaceutical companies did not back it with
sufficient advertisement revenue,then I am not too surprised.Arguably,the
BMJUSA did not meet sufficient circulation levels (and it is not difficult
to work out why),thus it would not have been viable for pharmaceutical
companies to advertise/sponsor such journal.So no blame should be
aportioned on the pharmaceutical industry for the BMJ Group's own failure
to produce a quality journal to suit the US market.
Singing the body electronic
BMJ 2006; 332: 0-f.
Competing interests: No competing interests