Editorial

At a recent Editorial Board meeting of Psychoanalysis and History we discussed at length various proposals concerning its Peer Review policy. Having agreed on the following guidelines, we are pleased to share them here with our readers and prospective authors.

Submitted articles which the Editor considers to be potentially suitable for publication in Psychoanalysis and History will be read and assessed independently by two referees: an internal one, i.e. a member of our Editorial Board; and an external one, i.e. one of the journal's Associate Editors, International Advisors, or someone not otherwise involved in our publication. In the case of either clear disagreement between the referees, or papers of a potentially contentious nature, we may seek the opinion of a third referee.

Our main criterion for selecting referees is their competence in the specific topic of the article to be assessed and their capacity to evaluate it objectively, keeping in mind the interdisciplinary orientation of our journal and the presumed interests of its readers. This means, in practice, that referees will for the most part, but not exclusively, be psychoanalysts and/or historians.

The entire process will be carried out anonymously. The author's name will be withheld from the referees, and their names will be withheld from the author and from each other.

Once reached, our decision will be communicated in writing to the author, who will also be sent an edited version of the referees' comments. The decision could be that the article (a) can be published as submitted; (b) will require minor changes (the new version of the paper will then be published without needing further assessment); (c) will require major changes (the new version of the paper will then be reassessed by the reader or readers who had required the alterations); (d) is considered unsuitable for publication.

The final decision and responsibility for accepting or rejecting a paper rest with the journal's Editor.

As the centenary c