You are here: Home > About ACAT > Reformulation - the newsletter for ACAT > Aims and Scope of Reformulation

Aims and Scope of Reformulation

Editors:

Editors: Ceara Geoghegan, Claire Moran
Sub Editors: Alison Jenaway, Carol Gregory
Editorial Advisor: Elizabeth McCormick

---

Reformulation

is committed to upholding a broadly based view of the Cognitive Analytic approach and developments within CAT.  Reformulation considers articles on CAT practice and theory, as well as debates, letters, poems, book reviews, art works and adverts relevant to CAT.    Contributions by users of CAT are particularly welcome.  Views expressed by writers are their own and do not necessarily reflect the personal views of the editors or ACAT.  Editors encourage exchange and debate between differing points of view and for this reason invite readers to respond to articles by writing letters to the Editors with a view to publication.

Submissions:

Articles should be submitted electronically via ACAT to reformulation@acat.me.uk.  Articles are only accepted at the discretion of the editors.  The Editors cannot guarantee that a manuscript accepted for publication will be published in any particular issue of the Journal.

Guidance for submitting articles:

A very wide format is acceptable for submitting material.  Articles may be between 250, typically 2,000 and exceptionally for special interest article, up to 5,000 words.  Letters and book reviews should not normally exceed 1,000 words.  If substantial clinical material is used, it should be fully anonymised and signed consent forms must be submitted too which demonstrate that the client (or their proxy, in the case of someone too impaired to give informed consent) from whom the material is drawn, has read and agreed the article.

References:

All citations must be referenced in the text with the authors’ names, followed by the date of their publication, unless there are three or more authors, when only the first author’s name is quoted followed by et al. References at the end of the paper should be listed in alphabetical order with an unabbreviated article, book or journal title, in Harvard style.  A useable version of Harvard’s referencing guidelines can be obtained at this internet address: https://www.open.ac.uk/library/referencing-and-plagiarism/quick-guide-to-harvard-referencing-cite-them-right and Harvard also offer a free referencing generator which you can find via Google ‘Harvard Referencing’.

The end of each submission should have a brief biography of the author / authors.  In keeping with developing the dialogical nature of Reformulation, an email address from the author should also be published to enable discussion.

Copyright:

Authors are asked to agree to allow future publication of the article by ACAT in Reformulation, on the ACAT website and in other forms as required by ACAT. The author will warrant that they have obtained the relevant permissions to allow publication of any material not owned by them (including from any co-authors and previous publishers of all or some of the material). Authors retain the copyright in the article in other respects.

Assessment and editing process:

All material submitted to the journal will be assessed.  Submissions will go out to peer review by two reviewers from the Editorial Board.  These reviewers will either be an expert in that particular field or unfamiliar with that particular field so able to highlight how accessible the content is. The reviewers will submit their opinion to the editors and where appropriate, liaise with the authors about any changes.  The editors retain the responsibility whether to accept or reject the final state of the article.

Responses include two formats:

1)  Corrections:  These refer to presentation issues, such as points of grammar, clear style, concise content, and correct punctuation and spelling; to concepts that appear to be used poorly, incorrectly or inappropriately and to disagreement about facts.  Ethical issues are also included, such as requirements to demonstrate adequate consent has been obtained and to model either good enough therapy or a discussion about therapeutic shortcomings.  Corrections must be adhered with through authors making those required changes.

2) Comments:  A comment is aimed to offer something that the author has not considered, to develop thinking.  Comments do not replace the author’s voice with the editor’s and so do not have to be accepted by the author. Comments can develop into interesting discussions which editors may wish to publish where further thinking has productively led to a deeper understanding or appreciation of an issue relevant to CAT.  Editors may also invite readers to continue a discussion, either directly with the author or in a forum that could be published in a subsequent edition.

The editors may approach people on an individual basis to ask them if they wish to review anonymously or comment on specific submissions.

Editing benchmarks:

1)  Articles can be theoretical, polemical and provocative putting forward a particular view point, but need to be coherent, following a logical train of thought and not meander or offer redundant (repetitive) material.

2)  Articles have at least one original idea or novel application of an idea; they offer something new to the CAT reader.

3)  Papers are well structured with sub-headings if necessary.

4)  Scientific assertions are either referenced and backed up by data, or described tentatively and not as hard fact.

5)  References tie up with the text.

6)  There is an adequate synthesis of findings or conclusions drawn from the material presented.

7)  Grammar, spelling, punctuation, style, elegance and appropriate phrasing all good enough (editors are happy to help with this).

Protocol for reviewing a submission

1. Reviewers will be sent a submission for Reformulation without the name of the authors.
2. Using the reviewer’s guidelines, reviewers will think about the submission and write a response using each of the points in the guidelines.  Points can be made using Track Changes onto a copy of the submission as well as free text. This should take up to one week.
3. Reviewers will then send their responses to the editors.
4. The editors will look at these comments.  The editors do not have to agree with the reviewer, but provided the review is in keeping with the dialogical principles of Reformulation, the editors will then put the reviewers in contact with the authors, but ccs to the editors always.
5. Reviewers and authors then discuss.  Obviously, authors have a right to reject the reviewer’s suggestions, just as the editors have a right to reject an article for publication.
6. Authors submit their revisions to the reviewers, ccs the editors.
7. This process is time limited (the date will be set for each edition).
8. If an article looks promising, but is not ready, then reviewing can continue with a later edition in mind.   
9. When reviewing is complete, the final is sent to the editors.
10. The editors responsibility is not only about whether to accept or reject the final state of the article, but also which edition to put it in.  

Guidelines for Reviewers

1. Does the article demonstrate good theory – practice links?
2. Is the article coherent and follow a logical train of thought?
3. Is it well structured, with subheadings if necessary?
4. Is the article concise and not repetitive?  Articles should generally be 1500 – 2000 words long, with the exception of major theoretical articles or reports of major research.
5. Does the article have at least one original idea or novel application of an idea; does it offer something new for the CAT reader? Do you think the article would extend or deepen readers’ understanding or appreciation of the issues from a CAT perspective?
6. Are ‘scientific’ or factual assertions backed up by references or data, or described tentatively and not as hard fact?
7. Is there an adequate synthesis of findings or conclusions drawn?
8. Are concepts used correctly?
9. Is clinical material anonymised?
10. Are ethical issues adequately addressed?
11. Was the case material used a good enough example of CAT and/or is there a discussion about therapeutic shortcomings?
12. Are references correct (Harvard guidelines)?
13. Are citations correct i.e., do the references tie up with the text? 
14. Is the grammar good, with a clear style, concise content and correct punctuation and spelling?

 

Revised and Updated 2023

News from ACAT

Click to read all news