Editorial

As IJP Open approaches its sixth month in operation, I would like to take the opportunity to reflect upon the potential and the status of this online site for open peer review and debate. Like any innovation, IJP Open has attracted both praise and concerns. After describing the positive responses that IJP Open has received and the kinds of contributions to analytic discourse that I feel it has begun to make, I would like to dispel some misunderstandings that have arisen and detail some changes that I have introduced in response to questions raised by its critics.

The aim of IJP Open is to foster the development of critical thought within the larger community, to give rise to debates around issues that preoccupy psychoanalysts and other scholars today, and to form a greater multicultural perspective. We have learned that IJP Open is being used, as we had hoped, for educational purposes, to discuss the evaluation of an argument and its demonstration, to think about the relevant use of clinical material, and to develop paper-writing skills. For the first time, the thoughtful, scholarly, and time-consuming work of our anonymous expert reviewers who guide our decisions can benefit the community.

IJP Open has engaged the interest of the community, receiving thousands of downloads. The discussions have proved interesting and valuable to authors and readers, and we have received many appreciative comments from different regions of the world. Several papers have generated large numbers of comments, and we thank many of you for your excellent contributions. On occasion, an author has quoted a comment from IJP Open in their final paper.

Comments have also given rise to highly relevant issues about how to review papers from colleagues, and about the role of clinical material; the latter point touches on fundamental differences, which Blass highlights in her editorial introduction to a recent Psychoanalytical Controversy (,