- Email: [email protected]
Editorial: Share your comments
Biological Psychology 37 (1993) l-2 0 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers
Editorial:
B.V. All rights reserved
0301-0511/93/$06.00
Share your comments
A scientific journal is a shared record of our progress as a science. Each contribution is evaluated critically by our reviewers. You, the reader, however, will often note interpretive problems or larger issues of importance for the field as you read the JourruzZ. Comment and discussion of such points can be as important as the original article itself. For this reason in 198.5, we initiated a Commentary section. Though successful, we would like to encourage more commentary so we can expand this section of the Journal. The Commentary section is designed to publish a comment on a “target article” and a reply by the author of the target article. Extended rejoinder beyond this basic exchange of views is discouraged. Target papers have often been published in Biological Psychology, but this has not been a requirement. Target articles in the general area of biological psychology, as defined in the Aims and Scope of the Journal, have come from other journals, although, of course, articles must be of sufficient general interest to warrant commentary. Commentary papers have been, and should continue to be, submitted directly to the Commentary Editor (John Furedy). They should be no more than four journal pages in length (about 6-7 manuscript pages, double spaced). Each commentary is reviewed by two disinterested and anonymous reviewers, as well as being sent to the author of the target article. The target author’s role is only to comment on factual or logical errors, and on other matters of detail; advice on publishability is requested only from the two disinterested and anonymous reviewers. If the comment is accepted for publication, the author(s) of the target article are invited to reply, again in four pages or less, and with a 6-week deadline from the date of receipt of the accepted version of the commentary. The target author’s reply, with minimal refereeing by the Commentary Editor, ends the commentary process. By “minimal refereeing”, we mean that the reply is reviewed only to ensure that the reply is a genuine response to the comments, and free from inappropriate ad hominem comments. In addition, we will be asking the Associate Editors, when appropriate, to solicit commentary papers for articles that they have just accepted for publication. It goes without saying that such “invited” submissions will be refereed with the same rigor as non-invited submissions. Our aim is to encourage further commentary without any decrease in the quality of the published commentary package papers.
2
So, whether by associate-editor invitation or on your own initiative, invite you, our readers, to send commentary manuscripts to: John Furedy, Commentary Department of Psychology University of Toronto Toronto ON 181 Canada
we
Editor
J. Richard
Jennings
and John Furedy
Editorial:
B.V. All rights reserved
0301-0511/93/$06.00
Share your comments
A scientific journal is a shared record of our progress as a science. Each contribution is evaluated critically by our reviewers. You, the reader, however, will often note interpretive problems or larger issues of importance for the field as you read the JourruzZ. Comment and discussion of such points can be as important as the original article itself. For this reason in 198.5, we initiated a Commentary section. Though successful, we would like to encourage more commentary so we can expand this section of the Journal. The Commentary section is designed to publish a comment on a “target article” and a reply by the author of the target article. Extended rejoinder beyond this basic exchange of views is discouraged. Target papers have often been published in Biological Psychology, but this has not been a requirement. Target articles in the general area of biological psychology, as defined in the Aims and Scope of the Journal, have come from other journals, although, of course, articles must be of sufficient general interest to warrant commentary. Commentary papers have been, and should continue to be, submitted directly to the Commentary Editor (John Furedy). They should be no more than four journal pages in length (about 6-7 manuscript pages, double spaced). Each commentary is reviewed by two disinterested and anonymous reviewers, as well as being sent to the author of the target article. The target author’s role is only to comment on factual or logical errors, and on other matters of detail; advice on publishability is requested only from the two disinterested and anonymous reviewers. If the comment is accepted for publication, the author(s) of the target article are invited to reply, again in four pages or less, and with a 6-week deadline from the date of receipt of the accepted version of the commentary. The target author’s reply, with minimal refereeing by the Commentary Editor, ends the commentary process. By “minimal refereeing”, we mean that the reply is reviewed only to ensure that the reply is a genuine response to the comments, and free from inappropriate ad hominem comments. In addition, we will be asking the Associate Editors, when appropriate, to solicit commentary papers for articles that they have just accepted for publication. It goes without saying that such “invited” submissions will be refereed with the same rigor as non-invited submissions. Our aim is to encourage further commentary without any decrease in the quality of the published commentary package papers.
2
So, whether by associate-editor invitation or on your own initiative, invite you, our readers, to send commentary manuscripts to: John Furedy, Commentary Department of Psychology University of Toronto Toronto ON 181 Canada
we
Editor
J. Richard
Jennings
and John Furedy