Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: You can request more content in your language…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Would you like more of PEP’s content in your own language? We encourage you to talk with your country’s Psychoanalytic Journals and tell them about PEP Web.

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

Anon (2005). Reply to Dr Schwaber. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 86(4):1197-1198.

(2005). International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 86(4):1197-1198

Reply to Dr Schwaber Related Papers

Anon

Editors' note

We chose to allow the anonymous author to speak for himself in his reply to Dr Schwaber's letter. The author's response also serves to summarize our reasons for allowing an option for anonymous submissions to the Analyst at work format.

Dear Sirs,

At the risk of compounding a felony, I would like to respond anonymously. The ‘accountability’ that for Dr Schwaber is part and parcel of ‘scientific merit’ would be required only if the author was claiming to be proving something and, more technically, only if there was an implication that the reported findings might be replicable. These claims demand that the observer be available for interrogation by those interested in conducting similar experiments, but of course nothing of the sort is involved in the kind of clinical description invited by the Analyst at work series.

So the question is how we can best promote full, honest description. As Dr Schwaber notes, there are many opinions on both the narrative and the ethical dimensions of this issue, and any brief statement inevitably comes across as ex cathedra. I do not understand, however, why Dr Schwaber thinks that publishing the material anonymously would compromise an analyst's ability to acknowledge authorship to the patient ‘should it come to her or his attention’.

I must add that I cannot see at all how choosing the option to present anonymously limits the possibility for ‘candid’ exchange. Indeed, the challenging responses of the discussants to my case seem to refute that argument outright.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, 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.