I welcome the new Editor's plans to bring the Journal firmly into the 21st century by making it intellectually stimulating but also inviting and readable for all (Tyrer, 2003). The previous Editor may have done much to improve the Journal's impact factor to the scientific community by increasing its citation rate but what has not been studied are the views of the core readership. Should not a survey of readers be carried out to see what people think of the Journal and who reads how much and of what? I suspect the answer may be not much of very little, and that for most of us the Journal has a fairly short ‘wrapper off to bookshelf time’.
The Journal's core readers are many thousands of jobbing psychiatrists. We are looking for important new information that has bearing on our day-to-day clinical practice. Yes, we have the Psychiatric Bulletin, with its zippy and original offerings, but sometimes a subject needs a more academic and lengthy airing. Perhaps the readership could suggest subjects for editorials, and why not have each book review written by both an expert in the field and an ordinary reader, so as to capture different perspectives? I hope that the new Editor can increase the interaction between the Journal and all psychiatrists. Good luck.
EDITED BY STANLEY ZAMMIT