IJP Open - One Year Later

IJP Open1 has just celebrated its first anniversary. For the first time in psychoanalytic history, working papers can be extensively discussed with peers before the completion of the formal reviews. Opting in authors can receive immediate, international feedback on their work, registration is free and everyone can become involved, contributing anything from a few lines to a major essay. The formal, anonymized reviews are also posted, giving an intriguing insight into the reviewing process, which becomes more transparent. Nevertheless, the proposal to launch IJP Open provoked an outburst of controversy. Dissenting voices warned against the biasing of the anonymous reviewing system: surely reviewers would be constrained by knowing the identity of the author and influenced by the comments of others? Further, would authors willingly expose their work in progress so widely? Would anyone, apart from the official reviewers, contribute to the debate? Others hoped that IJP Open might, indeed, live up to the promise of its name, opening up communication and underlining the ‘international’ quality of the Journal. So, one year later, to what extent have these initial hopes and fears been realized? Are there any major emerging themes in the discussions? What might we expect for 2015? Echoing the increased transparency of the endeavour, I should state my position, which is that of a fairly new reviewer for the Journal who welcomed the arrival of IJP Open. A British analyst, I read only English and French so regret that I am unable to comment on the discussions in German, Spanish and Portuguese.

The history of psychoanalysis bears witness to the inherent difficulty in maintaining a creative tension between opposing cultures. At one extreme, there is the temptation to avoid conflict in arguing that ‘we are all the same’, thereby failing to acknowledge significant differences between schools of thought. At the other, there is the danger of monopolizing the definition of psychoanalysi