Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To refine your search with the author’s first initial…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

If you get a large number of results after searching for an article by a specific author, you can refine your search by adding the author’s first initial. For example, try writing “Freud, S.” in the Author box of the Search Tool.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

McCann, D. (2018). Errata: D. McCann, Couple and Family Psychoanalysis, 7(1): 45-58 (2017). Cpl. Fam. Psychoanal., 8(1):73.

(2018). Couple and Family Psychoanalysis, 8(1):73

Letter to the Editor

Errata: D. McCann, Couple and Family Psychoanalysis, 7(1): 45-58 (2017)

Damian McCann

Dear Editor,

Re Errata in: “When the Couple is Not Enough, or When the Couple is Too Much: Exploring the Meaning and Management of Open Relationships”, D. McCann, Couple and Family Psychoanalysis, 7(1): 45-58 (2017).

I wish to offer a full and unreserved apology for the misuse of the paper “Infidelity as Manic Defence” by Shelley Nathans, (Couple and Family Psychoanalysis, 2(2): 165-180 (2012)) in the writing and publication of my paper cited above.

Although I did reference Nathans’ work in my paper, it has been brought to my attention that unfortunately on p. 52, para 1, and on p. 54, para 2, text from her paper (Nathans (2012) p. 170, para. 2 and p. 168, para 1, respectively) has been fractured and used by me unreferenced in the writing of my paper. I believe that this situation has arisen as a consequence of my paper going through various iterations and rewrites resulting in me losing touch with the original source of the material and drifting instead into a narrative using some of Nathans’ words and ideas to formulate an aspect of my argument.

I would also like to correct any potential misunderstanding arising from my paper (p. 54) that might imply that Nathans, in any way, views negotiated non-monogamous relationships as pathological, a view that she explicitly rejects (Nathans, 2012, p. 168, para 1).

My intention in writing the paper was twofold: firstly, I wished to challenge the predominant valorisation of the closed monogamous couple relationship that is so much at the heart of couple psychoanalytic theory; and, secondly, I wanted to raise questions that I hoped might stimulate further thinking within the field, rather than offering fully formed arguments that would diminish, dismiss, or attack the thinking of others, especially that of Nathans, whose work I value enormously.

Finally, I also wish to make the assurance that in any future use of my 2017 paper, as referenced above, I will, of course, reflect the changes outlined in this letter.


[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the article. PEP-Web provides full-text search of the complete articles for current and archive content, but only the abstracts are displayed for current content, due to contractual obligations with the journal publishers. For details on how to read the full text of 2017 and more current articles see the publishers official website.]

Copyright © 2021, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.