Abstract
Peer review is a process often viewed as critical to the advancement of science. But, as Norman Poythress and John Petrila make clear in the lead article of this issue of the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, it is a process that can go awry. They discuss a dispute that arose concerning publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal, the consequences of which included, certainly, a major delay in publication of the article; probably, an extra round of reviews and required revisions that were unwarranted; and, quite possibly, a chilling effect on research in the field. In this Editorial, I reflect on Poythress and Petrila's cautionary tale and its relevance for the journal's editorial policies and procedures.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
