Gelade's (2006) paper raises some very important points about the continuing role and development of JOOP that will encourage critical reflection and debate in our discipline. However, it also contains various assumptions that should be further explored before committing JOOP to action. Here I argue that we have to reflect more carefully on: the nature of the ‘problem’ with JOOP, and its causes; the characteristics of the claimed divide between ‘academics’ and ‘practitioners’, and its effects; and what constitutes ‘practical concerns’. I suggest that we need to investigate the current situation more systematically before committing to action but that any intervention should discourage the greater sedimentation of an academic‐practitioner divide. As an initial development, I recommend that we reflect more on the review process as this is the most direct influence on the nature of JOOP publications.