The future London Journal of Primary Care.

Abstract

RCGP London is proud of the London Journal of Primary Care. We are determined to support a transition to its next phase that should continue its high quality and increase its impact. Four years of publication have seen the success of the formula of twice-yearly themed editions. It allows the journal to print side-by-side papers that are authored by senior academics with international authority, and papers authored by local practitioners that describe grass-roots innovations. The editorial team actively seeks papers that provide a breadth of perspectives, and supports the authors to link their contributions together. This helps readers to see more of an integrated whole picture than is possible in journals that are usually constrained by papers that are spontaneously submitted. RCGP London would like this formula to be developed, to link journal papers with faculty-led educational activities. We would like teams to surround each theme, some securing and supporting the best papers, and others hosting conferences and training courses for people to learn from the themes. We want clinical commissioning groups to write up their best work for the journal, and contribute to the identification of the best themes. In this way the journal could nurture a network of practitioners and managers to explore ways to create a high quality, primary care-led NHS. This successful formula has a down-side – it is difficult to secure enough funds to facilitate the production of papers and also provide print copies. We have to face a stark decision – whether to close the print edition and compensate with enhanced e-communication, or continue with a print version which is heavily dependent on pharmaceutical sponsorship. Whichever publication choice we make, the need for engagement and involvement is paramount. Commissioning papers and generating copy is hard work! Will academic authors want to contribute to a paper with up to 40% advertising space? How will the editorial team commission enough for four publications a year? How can we help make complex issues – and articles – of interest and value to ‘jobbing’ GPs? How can members and faculty boards get involved to create educational activities around future Journal themes? How can we create and maintain interest in a web-published journal? There is no doubt in my mind that there exists the interest, enthusiasm and skills to give the journal a viable and vibrant future. How best can we make that happen? Please contribute to the faculty debate about this important decision. Tony Burch Chair RCGP London Email: moc.liamg@hcrubynot