= Registered users
= Paid-up subscribersIf you, or your peer group, would like to comment on an article or have a question for the authors, write to:
SEARCH
CPD frameworks
These frameworks, associated with all articles, prompt drafting of personal learning, reflection and planning.
Save your reflective note into your device or cloud
Fillable PDF frameworks
Adobe reader needed for tablets
Word frameworks - for reflective practice
Click to download
Reflection on a journal article
Stages of reflection on a situation
Reflection of a team, practice or group
External reference on reflection
Reflective practice in health care and how to reflect effectively
Koshy K, Limb C et al. International Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2017 2:e20
Comment or question
Case report submission
Your case report 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]
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 values | 3. Peer review system |
| 2. Editorial team and advisers | 4. 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 readers to capture personal reflections upon the evidence to use 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 | Executive Editor |
| Editorial Advisers | Review 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 DrPH 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 (Hons) MBBS PGDipCard Former GP, Community Cardiology Specialist, Southampton and Mid Hampshire | |
| 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: Pick out and review recent research papers in The Practitioner in their area of special interest 2. 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 Editor selects two doctors to peer review the main articles. They are blinded as to the author's identity and institution. They 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.
A reviewer from The Practitioner's panel of GPs 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 20/11/2018
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]
