Comment and Response in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

Article excerpt

In this issue, readers will find an exchange of views on the topic of visual neglect between Shomstein, Kimchi, Hammer, and Behrmann, on the one hand, and Milberg and McGlinchey, on the other (pp. 607-627). In this case, the exchange grew out of the review process. Sometimes, reviewers and authors simply disagree on a point. In most cases, these are matters for the paper's action editor to sort out. In rare cases, the issue seems interesting enough to present to the readership. The question of the presence or absence of attentional selection in neglect seemed to me to be one of those issues, so I invited Bill Milberg to write a comment and Sarah Shomstein and her coauthors to write a response. I hope readers will find the exchange interesting, but I am highlighting it here in an editorial in order to make a few broader points.

1. It is not necessary for all reviewers to agree with everything an author says in order for a paper to be published in AP&P.

2. The manuscript submission process allows authors to recommend reviewers and to ask that certain people not serve as reviewers. As a corollary of Point 1, it is usually not necessary to keep one's ideological opponents away from the review process. They are likely to be among the most interested readers of an author's paper. Authors should feel free to use their cover letter to tell us that Dr. …