Dear Author

Dear Author

Iimagine you are wondering about the process the journal will go through to evaluate the paper you have submitted. I know you are anxious about the fate of your work. Waiting for a response can be agonizing, so I will describe what will happen now, in the hope that information will temper your uncertainty.

The peer review process gives our journal substance and status. A submitted paper is read by at least two reviewers. They comment on whether the paper is acceptable for the journal and, if not, what kind of changes might improve it. This process can be bruising for you, Dear Author. The impetus to write this note comes out of my own discouragement when my papers have come back bearing many suggestions. Of course, I felt angry, as well as deflated. I often thought, “That is the paper the reviewer wanted me to write, not the one I had in mind.” I regretfully admit that I have put aside more than one paper at that point. Now, as an editor, I realize how foolish I have been when I see many others' very valuable ideas that just need a little work.

Yes, irony of ironies, I am now an Associate Editor for the International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology. My job is to shepherd through the review process the papers that the Editor-in-Chief, Bill Coburn, has assigned to me. I read the submitted paper and select two reviewers who have some expertise in the subject that the paper addresses. Reviewers are therapists,

scholars, and teachers who have contributed to the field in the past. Sometimes I select a “rookie,” a person who hasn't reviewed for us, but has written a paper him- or herself or presented well at a conference. If the two chosen reviewers do not agree about a paper, I select a third. Sometimes I nominate myself as the third reviewer, if I have an opinion about a paper. I consult frequently with Bill Coburn during the process. I believe the Editor-in-Chief is very important to the journal because he provides an overarching philo