The case for serendipity, and what readers say about the BCMJ

You arrive home after a long day of seeing patients and collect the mail, scattered across the entryway beside children’s shoes and cardboard boxes. Among the flyers and bank statements is the BCMJ. You recognize it instantly by its distinctive, if enigmatic, cover artwork. As you wait for the water to boil while making dinner, you leaf through the journal’s pages to discover that a friend from medical school has published a piece in the Clinical Images section. It’s not directly relevant to your specialty, but it’s interesting to see what she’s up to in the remote community where she practises. A clinical article on asthma treatment in BC also catches your eye—not something you typically manage in your practice, but relevant nonetheless, since one of your children suffers from asthma, and wildfire season will soon be upon us (something else you’ve read about in a prior issue of the BCMJ). You pause at a letter responding to last month’s President’s Comment, addressing government policies that could affect physicians across the province.

As family physicians or specialists, we all have our go-to resources for continuing medical education. But given the countless niches and the depth of medical knowledge that exists today, these resources rarely overlap across subspecialties. That’s the beauty of a general medical journal—even if you aren’t seeking a specific article, many turn out to be relevant, either directly or indirectly, because they’re local. The BCMJ keeps doctors connected outside of their clinical lanes. My message to potential authors is this: More of your colleagues will read your research if you publish it here than almost anywhere else. Medicine doesn’t happen in silos, nor should our reading.

In June 2025, we completed our most recent reader survey, with 795 responses from 24 700 surveys sent, a modest response rate but comparable to prior surveys in 2022 and 2016. Of those respondents, 39% were family physicians, 40% were specialists, 17% were retired, and 4% were students. The majority (57%) were between 35 and 64 years of age, while 36% were over 65 years of age. The survey results are presented in greater detail later in this issue, but a few standouts deserve mention:

• The BCMJ is, increasingly, a journal that people want to read. Sixty-two percent of respondents said they “always” or “usually” read the journal, compared with 40% in 2016 and 2022. At a time when publications are struggling to hold readers’ attention, this growth in loyalty is remarkable. Physicians value the BCMJ as a source of information about what is happening in BC’s health care system and with its health care providers.
• Serendipity is our strength. Most readers (58%) said they browse for interesting headlines, which reinforces the importance of discovery. A digital algorithm may not serve up the article you didn’t know you needed, but the BCMJ can, and often does. The act of browsing strengthens the sense of community across our province by exposing us to topics beyond our own specialties.
• Print still works. Across all ages, the BCMJ maintains strong support for a print edition, with 74% to 88% of readers aged 35 to 65 saying they prefer it. This is consistent with 2022, when 82% reported the same. Print invites that flip-through moment that leads to unexpected discoveries—pieces that might otherwise be buried in an inbox. It also encourages communication and supports our work in a way that feels tangible and enduring.

We invite you to read more on the Back Page of this issue and share your reflections with us. The survey results confirm what we’re doing well, but they also highlight areas for improvement—whether through indexing, increased visibility, or digital evolution. As I mentioned in June when I asked you to complete the survey, the BCMJ’s future is shaped by its readers.
—Caitlin Dunne, MD

hidden

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.