Premium
“Echo attributions” and other risks when publishing on novel therapies without peer review
Author(s) -
Rosen Gerald M.,
Davison Gerald C.
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/jclp.1092
Subject(s) - attribution , publishing , psychology , promotion (chess) , reputation , mainstream , statement (logic) , field (mathematics) , echo (communications protocol) , social psychology , sociology , social science , computer science , law , political science , computer network , mathematics , politics , pure mathematics
A special series on Thought Field Therapy in the Journal of Clinical Psychology provides an opportunity for psychologists to learn about techniques and theories outside the mainstream of our field. Unfortunately, by publishing this series of manuscripts without meeting the standards of peer review, the Journal also provides an avenue for the misuse of its good reputation and the improper promotion of untested methods. “Echo attributions” can be made whereby an author attributes the source of his own words to the professional journal in which the text appears. Historical examples illustrate that such misuse of scientific journals and institutions occurs. A formal statement of guidelines is needed to instruct authors on appropriate versus unethical representations of their publications. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 57: 1245–1250, 2001.