Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Introducing CMAJ's Readers' Advisory Panel

Jennifer Thomas and John Hoey
CMAJ September 30, 2003 169 (7) 676;
Jennifer Thomas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Hoey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Every 2 weeks, the pace quickens at CMAJ's editorial offices as we put the finishing touches on another issue of the journal and send it off to our printing company and to HighWire Press, the host of the online journal. A while later the issue reaches the mail slots and computer screens of CMAJ's readers. The issue may create ripples of interest or annoyance, but the ripples don't often lap against our offices.

Readers provide feedback to the authors of the articles we publish through letters to the editor; they critique elements of researchers' work or raise points that authors neglected to address. With some exceptions,1 however, readers rarely provide feedback directed at the editorial staff.

The World Association of Medical Editors has stated that “editorial decisions should be based mainly on the validity of the work and its importance to readers, not the commercial success of the journal.”2 James Maskalyk, our 2002–2003 Editorial Fellow, noted that the “careful, continuous evocation of CMAJ's reader is necessary for the journal to respond to the changing needs of physicians across Canada.”3 With these thoughts in mind, last year we decided that we needed to do a better job of soliciting feedback from our readers. In March 2002 we invited 24 readers to join a Readers' Advisory Panel. We chose the initial group of panellists from among a group of people who had already demonstrated an interest in the journal by writing a letter to the editor in the previous 2 years. We selected readers to ensure representation in both primary and specialty care, and we were particularly interested in including people who worked in community rather than academic settings to provide a counterpoint to the experience of most of our associate editors and Editorial Board members. We invited medical students, practising physicians and retirees to join the panel, in an effort to include people with a wide range of years of experience in medicine.

Of the readers we selected, 5 declined our invitation. The 19 readers who agreed to participate are listed in Box 1. We have asked them to serve a 3-year term on the panel, with the possibility of renewal, and they will be invited to attend meetings of our Editorial Board in Ottawa on a rotating basis. So far we have asked the panellists to critique an issue of the journal, to comment on the changes we have made to CMAJ's News section over the past 3 years, to suggest topics for our Public Health column, to provide feedback on CMAJ's objectives4 and to advise us about whether we should keep our current cover format or switch to either a full-page illustration or a more complete listing of the table of contents without an illustration.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Box 1.

The panel is making the job of evoking our reader a bit easier, just as we had hoped. For example, one panellist commented, “I do not like the full-cover illustration concept for regular use… . My life is very busy. When I receive a journal I immediately scan the contents if [they are] on the cover. If the contents are not on the cover, the publication is put away until such time as I get to it. I must admit, sometimes I never get to it, and potentially miss an article that may be important to my practice.” Feedback from the panel is influencing the discussions around our editorial table; we are putting more effort into soliciting good-quality review articles and commissioning illustrations from professional medical illustrators, partly because panellists told us that they find review articles particularly valuable and they encouraged us to improve our graphics.

We thank the panellists for volunteering their time to help us improve the journal and we look forward to more gentle and not-so-gentle comments from them in the future. We encourage other CMAJ readers who may be interested in joining the panel to contact us.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Unwanted results: the ethics of controversial research [editorial]. CMAJ 2003;169(2):93.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    World Association of Medical Editors. Editorial Independence. Posted 2000 June 19. Available: www.wame.org/wamestmt.htm (accessed 2003 Aug 22).
  3. 3.↵
    Maskalyk J. The editing life [editorial]. CMAJ 2002;167(11):1252.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Hoey J, Todkill AM. Why a Journal Oversight Committee? [editorial]. CMAJ 2003; 168(3):287.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (7)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 7
30 Sep 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Introducing CMAJ's Readers' Advisory Panel
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Introducing CMAJ's Readers' Advisory Panel
Jennifer Thomas, John Hoey
CMAJ Sep 2003, 169 (7) 676;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Introducing CMAJ's Readers' Advisory Panel
Jennifer Thomas, John Hoey
CMAJ Sep 2003, 169 (7) 676;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Whence the Readers' Advisory Panel?
  • Whence the Readers' Advisory Panel?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Laser devices for vaginal rejuvenation: effectiveness, regulation and marketing
  • Antiracism as a foundational competency: reimagining CanMEDS through an antiracist lens
  • Keeping the front door open: ensuring access to primary care for all in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • CMAJ editorial policy

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire