Editorial

With this issue I conclude a decade of service as Editor of Psychoanalytic Psychology (PP). During that time I have reviewed more than a thousand manuscripts and have ultimately accepted about a third for publication. Initially, only about 20% of manuscripts are accepted for publication; however, more than a third of revised manuscripts have been accepted. I have urged authors to take the time to make revisions and resubmit. Virtually every manuscript benefits from careful reading by colleagues presumably sympathetic to the point of view or psychoanalytic perspective of the author whose work is being reviewed. In general, editorial review and suggestions for revisions have further strengthened even the most polished and well argued manuscript. Inevitably, following blind peer review and additional editorial scrutiny, some authors are disappointed that we have not been able to accept their papers.

I am particularly indebted to the several hundred colleagues who have undertaken this task of editorial review, and whose contributions have been acknowledged in the last number of each volume. The success of any professional or scientific journal is largely the result of the contributions by authors and the careful review of colleagues. Peer review is a time consuming task, confidential by its very nature, and likely to provide little professional or scientific reward. In general, colleagues have been more than forthcoming in accepting this task of peer review. However, PP has had greater difficulties than journals published on behalf of APA scholarly divisions in obtaining timely editorial review and in realizing prompt return of manuscripts. With a large number of our colleagues engaged in full-time professional practice, it is difficult to find the time and energy for such review. This has been a particular problem where expertise is required in an area for which there are few colleagues able to undertake such review. As difficult as completing this editorial review is,