Premium
Response to commentaries
Author(s) -
Martin Christopher S,
Langenbucher James W.,
Chung Tammy,
Sher Kenneth J.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
addiction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.424
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1360-0443
pISSN - 0965-2140
DOI - 10.1111/add.12729
Subject(s) - set (abstract data type) , psychology , addiction , criterion validity , internal validity , social psychology , cognitive psychology , psychiatry , clinical psychology , medicine , psychometrics , computer science , construct validity , pathology , programming language
In most cases, authors feel privileged to receive even one set of careful comments on a research article. To receive so many responses from such a distinguished group of researchers is an extraordinarily rare event. Obviously, those responses are quite varied, expressing a wide range of views on the contribution of the Berkovec, Canner, Gabriel, and Hannan (BCGH) article. In part, the diversity of opinion surrounding our article—like that of a number of other analyses of lending discrimination—derives from controversy surrounding discussions of this topic. Unfortunately, the differences of opinion expressed by participants in this colloquy cannot be resolved here. However, there is a tendency for the findings and limitations of the research to be obscured somewhat by the discussion. This brief final response is an attempt to restate the goals of the research and to highlight our views concerning the major points of contention.