Editorial Board responds

On behalf of the Editorial Board, I would like to thank Dr Sehmer for his letter. He obviously cares deeply about the BCMJ, as we do, and we take his concerns seriously. In fact, we agree with everything he says, except for a few facts that need correction:

•    The Editorial Board has not changed its policies or practices on letters to the editor.

•    The Personal View (letters) section has appeared in every issue in the past year, with the exception of June 2011. In the last 10 issues, we have had an average of six letters per issue. However, the number of letters published in each issue reflects the number we receive.

•    We publish letters regardless of politics—assuming they are not libe­lous—whenever we receive them, if we think they will be of interest to our readership. Recent examples are “BCMA: Term limits and more?” (BCMJ 2012;54:121) and “Biased information in BCMA voting package” (BCMJ 2012;54:230).

Dr Sehmer has the perception that we do not publish enough critical letters, but the bald fact is that we cannot print letters we do not receive. The BCMJ Editorial Board operates at arm’s length from the BCMA Board precise­ly for this purpose: so that the Journal can be a free and open forum for de­bate on any topic of interest to BC phy­sicians, including criticism of the BCMA. In fact the BCMA Board de­serves credit for steadfastly keeping out of BCMJ operations while continu­ing to approve its budget year after year. 

The BCMJ Editorial Board, composed of specialists and family phy­sicians, works on behalf of all BC phy­sicians. Month after month when re­viewing possible articles and letters, we ask, “Will they read this? Is it im­portant? Is it relevant? Will they care?” It’s a job we do with both pleasure and deadly seriousness.

So BC physicians, please, if you have something critical to say, send it in. If it’s fair, honest, and relevant to your colleagues, we would love to publish it.
—David R. Richardson, MD
Editor