WHAT DO OUR READERS THINK ABOUT ADC?

Although we continually consider the content of ADC, discussing our opinions and those of our colleagues at the biweekly auctions and annual retreat, “quantitative” data is invaluable. Every 2–3 years we survey our readers and we recently heard from 290 of you. Close to 70% of our readers report that the balance in ADC between original research and value added material, such as reviews, perspectives, and leading articles, is correct. Of the remaining 30%, half want more original research and half more value-added material. The best rated sections were the original articles, perspectives, reviews and leading articles, and the Education and Practice edition. The least popular were BackChat, book reviews, and Lucina. I continue to believe that hearing from our patients is important; in some regards this is our journal’s attempt to be more patient-centred, a contemporary issue in medicine. Every time we discuss withdrawing book reviews, a number of our readers remind us of their importance. I have always found Lucina helpful; it debuted many years before other journals began abstracting articles from the literature. Comments in the “text field” included the need to keep publishing a paper copy …