Reduce, reuse, recycle
BMJ 2008; 336 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39559.679155.47 (Published 24 April 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;336:0
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I accept the BMJ has made (and continues to make) progress in this direction.
I can also accept that there are those members that will always prefer to receive and work from, a print copy.
There are I am sure, a large number of BMA members who would be perfectly happy with using only an electronic copy of the BMJ.
I would suggest that this option be provided with the resultant cost saving in printing + postage either,
1) diverted to fund increased provision of the print copy in the developing world, or,
2) a reduction in membership costs to those opting for ‘no print version’ (similar to the reduction where couples opt to receive only one print copy).
This should have the potential to produce a far greater reduction in carbon footprint than the measures taken so far?
If the BMJ is serious about reducing environmental impact these points should be considered.
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In striving to reduce the use of plastic to wrap the BMJ, why not post it rolled up in a brown paper wrapper as was done a few decades ago? After his retirement my father tended only to look at the BMJ “to see who’s died”, but some copies remained unopened and were kept by the back door. He disliked marauding cats in his garden and found a rolled up BMJ was an excellent deterrent up to 20 yards.
Competing interests: I get cats in the garden
Competing interests: No competing interests
I would ask the board of the BMJ to reflect on comments made in the 26 April editorial entitled "Reduce, reuse, recycle" below:
"We have no plans as yet to stop producing a print journal. This would make the biggest contribution to cutting our carbon footprint, but we hear from readers who get the print journal that they don’t want to give it up."
The threat to public health posed by climate change necessitates a paradigm shift in our thinking. Whilst transition of the BMJ to an entirely web-based format would represent one small step for a journal, this could catalyse a giant leap for the medical profession.
Every day, the medical profession recommends countless patients to quit habits that threaten the individual's well being. If stopping production of the print journal offers the greatest opportunity to reduce the BMJ's carbon footprint then it is time for the readership to quit this particular carbon addiction.
We currently lack the definitive evidence base on this matter. Accordingly, I would ask the BMJ to poll the entire readership on the simple question, should the BMJ demonstrate leadership on climate change to the medical profession by moving to a solely web-based format?
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Competing interests: I wrote the article
Competing interests: No competing interests
Why not use brown paper
I'm not sure I'm convinced about the argument of not using brown paper wrapper for the BMJ instead of plastic. We receive the National Geographic in pristine condition every month in a brown paper wrapper.
If the BMJ is really interested in making environmentally friendly changes maybe it should do more research to ensure this is possible.
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests