Jones et al's (Reference Jones, Hanney and Buxton2004) reassuring article that British psychiatrists read British journals may indicate the preoccupation of the British with British services. It would not be surprising to find that British people use the Royal Mail, watch the BBC or ITV, read British newspapers, fly British Airways (I wonder)! Tables 1 and 2, however, reveal another interesting observation, which the authors did not address in their otherwise interesting article. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment was more often read by those without academic commitments, in all the age groups. The difference in the adult psychiatric group is quite marked — 17% of psychiatrists without academic commitments read Advances, compared with only 2% of those with academic commitments, a difference which may even be statistically significant. These trends are maintained in Table 2, where another difference between academic and nonacademic psychiatrists emerges: academic psychiatrists ranked the American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, Biological Psychiatry and the Journal of Psychopharmacology higher than did psychiatrists without academic commitments. One could infer that psychiatrists without academic commitments preferred journals like Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, which have practical, management-related reviews and updates, and psychiatrists with academic commitments preferred research-based journals. Or these differences could confirm the Editor's hunch that Advances in Psychiatric Treatment will gradually become more popular (Reference TyrerTyrer, 2004).