Dear all
Have been meaning to put my pre-decimal 2.5p worth into this debate! I
don't think we've missed the point at all. I feel that Nursing Times and
the BMJ *are* very similar in this respect. It's interesting that other
professional journals, for example, Community Practitioner and (I think) the
British Journal of Occupational Therapy have separate classified sections
which can either be filed or chucked as appropriate. Indeed, our own
professional journal does too... Maybe nurses do stay in jobs longer (is
there any proof of this?) but it presumably doesn't stop them looking at
what other things are on offer and what sorts of salaries and conditions
there might be that differ from their own.
Having umpteen pages just of adverts - in many cases more than half the
journal issue - is very galling, especially as they have no relevance very
soon after publication and yes, I would probably be able to get half as much
again on the shelves if the NT were smaller. I know we have the option to
bind, but we haven't got the budget for it. Also HSJ is just as bad and if
we had to choose just one title to bind, HSJ would be it.
Maybe a campaign is a bit strong, but certainly it's worth badgering the
publisher until they come up with an answer. It's not likely to be one we
want to hear, but at least we would be trying. We are as legitimate
purchasers of these journals as the professionals to whom they are intended,
after all!
This is, of course, my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect the
thinking of the King's Fund.
Liz
Jim Moore wrote:
> Dear all,
> I wonder if we are missing the point! The NT is designed primarily for
> nurses, who buy their own copies. I'm sure this the main funding source
> for the journal. I don't think a comparison with the BMJ is very
> accurate - maybe one with the HSJ is more realistic. Unlike junior
> doctors, who have to change jobs very frequently, and so often tend to
> look at the BMJ classified and not the journal itself, nurses stay in
> jobs longer, and probably read the NT more - the jobs section is useful,
> but not their only reason for reading/buying the journal.
>
> If nurses are happy with the current format, the publisher is hardly
> likely to listen to Librarians - how much of their business do we
> represent?
> Regards,
> Jim
>
> --
> Jim Moore
> Goldberg Library
> King George Hospital
> Barley Lane,
> GOODMAYES, Essex
> IG3 8JB
> Tel: 0181 970 8239
> Fax: 0181 970 8237
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
--
Liz James
Technical Services Librarian
King's Fund
11/13 Cavendish Square
London W1G 0AN
Tel: 020-7307 2559
Fax: 020-7307 2805
www.kingsfund.org.uk
"No heaven wil not ever Heaven be
Unless my cats are there to welcome me."
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|