Abstract
Australasian Psychiatry welcomes respectful scientific debate on topical issues and papers published in the journal. 1 Readers of the journal, as part of the medico-scientific community, are the ultimate arbiters of the worth of published papers. In this context, the Editorial team sometimes receives email correspondence that raises concerns about a published paper. Infrequently, correspondents request that a paper be corrected or retracted. However, the majority of papers are peer-reviewed, with the exception of identified Editorials (which are invited and not peer-reviewed, and designed to address time-sensitive topical issues of interest to the readership). Accordingly, if a correspondent, and thus potential author of a letter to the Editor, raises concerns about a peer-reviewed paper, the journal’s approach is to request assessment of the correspondent’s statements through symmetrical peer review of their correspondence. The correspondent’s views are also subject to peer review because the validity of the evidence and argumentation of a correspondent need to be assessed for the worth of consideration by journal’s readers and authors of the original paper.
Readers and authors who have views about papers published in the journal are therefore encouraged to submit their correspondence in the spirit of respectful scientific debate. 2 Correspondence should focus on the evidence and reasoned arguments for the authors’ views on the original published paper, similarly addressing the content of the original paper. One of the benefits of crafting correspondence is that this requires authors to clearly set out their views in a succinct manner understandable to others. Involving co-authors in correspondence can help improve the quality of arguments and the clarity of exposition. However, co-authors also must have made a substantive contribution to the writing of the paper.
Correspondents are advised to avoid comments regarding the authors of the original paper, as one of the common pitfalls of invalid argumentation is the ad hominem attack on the motives of authors. 3 There are useful references on the quality of logical argumentation. 3 Correspondents are also encouraged to avoid emotive expression and use of language that might cause offence. The journal reserves the right to request removal of potentially defamatory or offensive statements.
Correspondence on a paper in the format of a Letter to the Editor is preferred, as is a response from the author(s) of the original paper, and both letters are subject to peer review. The Letter format provides for 500 words and, in addition, 5 references. No further rounds of correspondence are usually permitted, and the journal retains the right to decline correspondence if it is considered that the issues have already been discussed sufficiently. A limitation of ongoing correspondence is necessary for any journal to avoid unnecessary repetition and to allow room for other papers. Other short format papers, such as Viewpoint (1500 words, 15 references) or Perspectives (2000 words, 25 references) may also be appropriately used to comment on published papers. If submitted, these papers will be provided the same peer-review process as all articles, provided the article meets the journal format and styles.
Since it is crucial, and therefore worth reiterating, focus correspondence on debating the evidence and arguments within a paper. The most effective debate is to appropriately challenge the evidence cited and arguments made and to show why they might miss the mark, so that other readers may assess independently for themselves, as exemplified in the following references (which predate the co-authors involvement as editors of Australasian Psychiatry).4,5 That is, as in the examples cited, to: ‘Play the ball, not the player’.
