"The bulk of the article seems fine, but the lede section contains some puffery. 

 The following sentences fell afoul of the concerns expressed in WP:WORDS: 

 The journal's vision is to become a leading journal for the application of research and knowledge into pharmacy practice. The mission is to attract, disseminate and discuss research and contemporary health care issues and links knowledge to practice. 

 CPJ's overall research themes encompass innovation, leadership, and evaluation of patient-centred care. It welcomes submissions relating to the design, conduct, and evaluation of pharmacy practice research. 

  
 I removed them (and slightly edited an earlier sentence) pending discussion form others about how and whether material such as this could be added. My thoughts follow: 

  
 A better approach wrt the mission statement would be to include the mission statement as a direct quote in a section in the main article. Then it comes across as the words from the source, not the WP editors summary. 

 Perhaps the same could be done for the vision statement, but I feel that is a bit too much (Some editors might also disagree with including the mission statement). 

 Vision statements and mission statements are absolutely relevant if they are discussed by independent sources. When that isn't the case, one has to be very careful to maintain a NPOV. My opinion is that a quoted mission statement is OK, while a vision statement is probably not. (This is largely a personal opinion, so will defer if others reach a different consensus. "