Login:
 

About The Practitioner

The Practitioner has been meeting the changing educational needs of GPs for 150 years. This monthly clinical review journal aims to keep GPs up to date by providing concise but in-depth coverage of important clinical developments that will have an impact on primary care. 

1. Mission and values3. Peer review system
2. Editorial team and advisers4. Instructions to authors

Last revised 14/09/2018

 

Mission and editorial values

Mission of The Practitioner

The Practitioner’s mission is to provide, primarily, general practitioners with independent, in-depth but concise, evidence-based review articles to keep them up to date in clinical practice. A subsidiary mission, through CPD prompts and exercises, is to encourage written reflection to be used to improve individual and group practice.

Last revised 14/09/2018

Editorial values

Readers and users expect The Practitioner's content to be editorially independent, trustworthy, and its editors to have integrity. We do not allow advertisers or sponsorship to influence editorial decisions.

Major influences for our  editorial values and procedures on The Practitioner are the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and White Paper on Publication Ethics of the Council of Scientific Editors.


Last revised 12/04/2016

 

Editors, Advisers and Reviewers

Editor
Corinne Short BSC (Hons) Physiology,
Postgrad diploma Information Science

Executive Editor
Robert Short BSc (Hons) Physiology



Editorial AdvisersReview panel of GPs with a special interest*
Dr Phillip Bland BA BM BCh MRCGP DRCOG
Former GP with an interest in mental health, Dalton-in-Furness, UK
Dr Chris Barclay MB ChB FRCOG
GP with an interest in O&G, Suffolk
Dr Peter Saul MB ChB DCH DRCOG FRCGP
GP with an interest in respiratory disease, 
Wrexham and Associate GP Dean for North Wales, UK
Dr Phillip Bland BA BM BCh MRCGP DRCOG
Former GP with an interest in mental health, Dalton-in-Furness, UK
Dr Matthew Lockyer BSc MB BS DCH DRCOG DFFP MRCGP 
GP with an interest in diabetes, Suffolk, UK
Dr Richard Ma MSc MRCGP DFSRH DCH DRCOG DipGUM Dr PH
GP with an interest in sexual health and NIHR Research Fellow,
Imperial College, London, UK
Dr Peter Saul MB ChB DCH DRCOG FRCGP
GP with an interest in respiratory disease,
Wrexham and Associate GP Dean for North Wales, UK
Dr Peter Savill BSc MBBS PGDipCard
GPwSI Cardiology, Southampton, UK
Dr Jez Thompson MB ChB MSc MRCGP
Former RCGP Regional Lead Substance Misuse
and Hepatitis C champion
GPwSI Substance Misuse, Leeds
Last revised 11/09/2018*Panel of GPs who:
1. Pick out and review recent research papers in 
The Practitioner in their area of special interest
2. Peer review main articles, question authors on evidence,
practice and ensure relevance to general practice
3. Highlight 'Key points' from the main articles for general practice 

 

 

Peer review system

The major review articles (Symposia articles, Special reports and the occasional Case report) are usually written by hospital specialists. The Practitioner’s panel of GPs with a special interest act as peer reviewers for each article. They are blinded as to the author's identity and institution.

Two reviewers peer review each article for accuracy, timeliness, strength of evidence, and how recent advances will affect day to day practice with respect to diagnosis, treatment and referral to secondary or tertiary care. The reviewers often request further information, data or explanations, to ensure relevance to general practice.

One reviewer will select 5 or 6 Key Points, i.e. key messages for GPs, which are published at the end of the article under the reviewer’s name.

Last revised 14/09/2018 

 

Instructions to authors


The main review articles are commissioned by the Editor, who chooses the primary author and topic independently. On occasions, authors will approach the Editor with their idea for a review article or case report. 

Case report can be submitted as full manuscripts. They would need to be around 1,500 words long, include a brief review of the literature to put the case in context, and be fully referenced in the Vancouver style.

Submissions for consideration should be sent to: 

[email protected]