Objectives：How dose the Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association reconcile both the essential companion in clinical practice and the leading academic journal of general psychiatry? Methods：I have been involving 2 projects of the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP), the leading international journal of general psychiatry. The first is a comparison between papers that are seen by referees who are willing for their names to be closed to the authors of previous papers and those who do not wish their names to be closed. The second involves the rejection rates and long-term outcome of papers submitted from low and middle income countries (LAMI). Results：Many referees of BJP were supportive of disclosure but not so much when it comes to the bad news. LAMI are contributing well to the psychiatric literature, though conclusions from the results can only be tentative in view of the relative small numbers. Conclusion：The BJP showed me that good journalism in an academic publication is not oxymoron. The criterion of the originality and the scientific reliability should remain uncompromised at any time and these should remain the clearest guides. I also would like our journal to be more excellence in clinical communication.
서 론
British Journal of Psychiatry(BJP)
학회지 신경정신의학 의 발전을 위한 제언
REFERENCES