Presentation Interacting with bmj

1. PresentationInteracting withbmj.com Tony Delamothe editor in chief, bmj.com 13 September 2006

2. Your boss writes…. • “We regard the bmj.com as supremely strong in the area of interaction (polls, debates, webchats, blogs, etc and of course your ‘rapid responses’ which appear to me a really rich area of user-generated content).”

3. The BMJ and bmj.com – brief background • BMJ (1840) • The membership journal of the British Medical Association • 100,000 print copies go to BMA members, 10,000 go to librarians • bmj.com (1995) • Now has three times the circulation of print BMJ Number of Online v Paper readers Online now = 3 x Paper 1995 1998 2001 2006

4. Increasing divergence – the ejournal becomes the journal electronic paper 1995 1998

5. Distinct roles • BMJ magazine • bmj.com Timely + concise news/ updates UK focus Up-to-date + depth medical research International reach Different platforms

6. How this plays out • No winner or loser • (But) bmj.com is the canonical version • Magazine is a subset of the online offering (an “editor’s choice”) • Offering targeted according to market • Maximal exploitation of the unique features of both media [Generate content in a medium neutral way - XML]

7. Interactive stuff • Rapid responses • Theme issues • Polls – journal issues and wider • Debates • Interactive case reports • Q & A • Webchats • Blogs

8. Some of the “messages” of rapid responses • Simplicity • Familiarity • Fulfilled a need • Moderation ( so overhead) • Dysfunctional folk • Showed the way ahead

9. The bores were taking over • Some respondents - • Felt the urge to share their opinion on any given topic, and piled in early and often, despite having little of interest to say. • Had pet topics, which they returned to obsessively, finding almost any peg to hang their views on. • Didn't feel really alive until they‘d sparked off an angry response from someone else. Rows then continued longer than interested anyone other than the combatants. • * • Attacks on views moved swiftly to attacks on the holder of those views; these were often continued via abusive emails until we stopped posting email addresses with responses.

10. The rapid response editorials • Letters to the editor: the new order (1998) • http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/316/7142/1406 • Twenty thousand conversations (2002) • http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/324/7347/1171 • Revitalising rapid responses (2005) • http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7503/1284

11. The way we were

12. The distance between us Yes No Decision making ? unsolicited solicited tdelamothe@bmj.com

13. Towards the jellyfish organisation Yes No ? unsolicited solicited tdelamothe@bmj.com

15. Other interactions • Theme issues • Polls – journal issues and wider • Debates • Interactive case reports • Q & A • Webchats • Blogs

16. Theme issues chosen by readers (2002) • Global voices on the AIDS catastrophe • War • Evaluating the quality of health information on the internet • The limits of medicine and the medicalisation of human experience • Road traffic crashes • Neurodegenerative diseases • Doctors' well being • What is a good doctor and how can we make one • Managing chronic diseases • Doctor-patient communication and relationships • What doesn't work and how to show it tdelamothe@bmj.com

17. Theme issues • http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/misc/fcissues.shtml

18. Other interactions • Theme issues • Polls – journal issues and wider • Debates • Interactive case reports • Q & A • Webchats • Blogs

19. Polls and debates • Past polls • Would the NHS benefit from a single, identifiable leader? • What is your idea of a good death? • Are doctors and the drug industry too close for comfort? • How political should a general medical journal be? • Past debates • Giving pain relief; hastening death Is intention crucial? • Internet bookshops: how do they stack up? • Education and the BMJ: could we do better? • Honey, I shrunk the articles: pleasing both authors and readers • http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/misc/strawpolls.shtml

20. Creating virtuous circles between online and print • Collect • Commission articles for special issue • Vote

21. Other interactions • Theme issues • Polls – journal issues and wider • Debates • Interactive case reports • Q & A • Webchats • Blogs

22. Interactive case report • Interactive case report • A 2 year old child with rash and fever • This child's case was described on 20 September and 27 September • (BMJ 2003;327: 668, 720[Free Full Text]). Debate on her management continues on bmj.com (bmj.com/cgi/eletters/327/7416/668). On 18 October we will publish the outcome of the case together with commentaries on the issues raised by the management and online discussion from a general practitioner, a paediatric cardiologist, a specialist in paediatric infectious disease, and the patient's mother.

23. Other interactions • Theme issues • Polls – journal issues and wider • Debates • Interactive case reports • Q & A • Webchats • Blogs

24. Webchats

25. Transferring power (a cautionary tale) • From FT’s review ofDot.com: the greatest story ever sold (2002) • “Perhaps the chief lesson of the whole story [is] the capacity of the internet to transfer absolute power to the consumer…. • “For years now, companies have been complaining quietly of their loss of influence over their customers. It may be, of course, that as the internet matures, they will be able to reassert themselves. If not, the tech frenzy could turn out not so much to have exaggerated the internet's promise as to have missed the danger it poses.” • [How out of date this looks in 2006, by when the customers have taken over]

26. Community ? • “Every site owner wants to build Community and every site owner wants blogs” • bmj.com – our country is the whole world • UK 35%, US 20%, Canada 5%, Australia 5%, Germany 2%, • Italy 2%, Ireland 2%, India 1%, Brazil 1%...... • User generated content – much of a scientific journal is already that