Abstract
I would like to extend our appreciation to all those who gave so much to making Academic Psychiatry an indispensable companion for the psychiatric educator. Editors have to pretend that they are experts in so many areas as they communicate with authors. But, in fact, we are the worst sort of dilettante. Constantly we borrow others' expertise. The dialogue is not between editor and author; it is between author and reviewer. Editors are brokers, facilitators, if you prefer a more delicate term. At its best, the review process is a conversation among three parties: author, referee, and editor. It is a conversation about the state of our knowledge in some particular area of psychiatry or, in the case of this journal, psychiatric education. The editor is the least important part of that conversation. First in importance is the author(s), without whose risk-taking and initiative and venturing forth with new thoughts there can be no conversation. We feel a deep gratitude to our authors and hope that seeing their names in each issue, and in the annual index is sufficient expression of our appreciation. The next most important part of that conversation is the referee, without whose expertise andIf you're having problem loading pages
Try our single-page mode to load one page at a time


Preview Only. This article cannot be rented because we do not currently have permission from the publisher.
Preview Only
© 2012 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy