A new era

As the oldest psychoanalytic journal, launched under Freud's direction in 1920, the IJP has established a venerable tradition of which we are proud. Beginning with this first issue of Volume 84, we are making a number of changes to both the form and the content of the Journal which we hope will combine innovation with respect for tradition.

When we first assumed the helm of the IJP, we implemented a strategic assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Journal. One of our initiatives, in response to our thrust towards internationalisation, was the establishment of a dialogue between analysts from different psychoanalytic cultures through our new feature ‘The Analyst at Work’. Another innovation was the creation of our ‘Community of Analysts’ network. When we surveyed our colleagues in this network, we asked them for a candid evaluation of how well the IJP served their needs as analysts. A recurrent refrain from respondents around the world was a wish for us to address cutting-edge controversies in the field. To this end, we are pleased to introduce ‘Psychoanalytic Controversies’ in this issue. This initiative will comprise two distinct, if not opposing, viewpoints to be published side by side. An analytic colleague will be invited to present a position statement on an issue in our field that is controversial. A response will then be enlisted from another colleague. Finally, the author of the original position statement will have the opportunity to offer a rejoinder to the response. We inaugurate this new feature with a contribution from Dr Richard Lucas of London on the relevance of psychoanalytic thinking to the understanding and treatment of patients with schizophrenia or other psychoses. Psychoanalytic approaches to psychotic patients were once far more widely accepted as part of the treatment plan for such patients than they are today. Dr Robert Michels of New York raises significant questions about Dr Lucas's position on this to