You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
January 25, 2004. In response to , , and allegation in JAPA 51/Supplement (pp. 164, 178) that in our article in that issue we advocate “censorship,” we wish to make clear that we advocate nothing of the sort. Our point was that we believe the editors of psychoanalytic journals have a responsibility to promote constructive dialogue by limiting unnecessary contentiousness and doing their best to ensure that articles they publish fairly represent the work of authors being critiqued.
As editors of Psychoanalytic Dialogues we have on a number of occasions asked authors to revise articles when we thought they did not represent the views of other authors accurately or fairly or when the tone of those articles seemed disrespectful to the authors whose work was being critiqued. This in no way interferes with the peer review process, and it is not necessary to reject a paper that has been recommended for acceptance. One need only ask the author to make the necessary changes in tone or emphasis prior to publication. Of course, there is often plenty of room for disagreement in any specific case as to whether an author's views are being fairly represented, and we do believe in keeping our conversations lively, so we do not expect to agree in all specific instances. Nonetheless, we believe that one of the primary responsibilities of an editor is to create the conditions in which productive exchange can take place. This was, after all, the topic we were invited to address in our articles. Our concern was with creating a tone of mutual respect and intellectual excellence, not with censorship.