"Echo attributions" and other risks when publishing on novel therapies without peer review.
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.
Rosen
G M
GM
grosen@u.washington.edu
Davison
G C
GC
D000329:Advertising; D003887:Desensitization, Psychologic / Q000379:methods; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000592:standards; D005133:Eye Movements; D006801:Humans; D016740:Meridians; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000592:standards*; D011586:Psychology, Clinical / Q000592:standards*; D011614:Psychotherapy, Brief / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D011643:Publishing / Q000592:standards*; D014481:United States