An important means of searching for truth is through debate where contradictory viewpoints are put forward. By hearing explicit accounts of contradictory viewpoints, the listener gains a better understanding of the source of a controversy. This dialectic process whereby a thesis is advanced, then opposed by an antithesis, and subsequently arriving at a synthesis is a powerful, and often entertaining, method for gaining knowledge and for understanding the source of the controversy.
The reader of a review article expects the author to provide balanced coverage of a topic, whereas the listener at a pro-and-con debate expects the presenters to advance polarized viewpoints. The presenters select the most convincing data to support their stand; this is not the venue to present data that support the opponent's case. Because the presenter puts a spin on interpretation of data, a debate can be amusing as well as educational. The presenter should stay focused on the subject under discussion, and a case is best made by judiciously limiting the pieces of evidence -- a long litany loses the reader's attention. Presenters should also avoid insider allusions, abbreviations, and jargon.
The title of each article will be a declarative statement of the type, "Muscle fatigue is (is not) caused by hydrogen ions” rather than an answer to a question. (The two sides of the debate will be cited separately.) Each author is allowed up to 1200 words to make one side of the argument; in addition, each author may include up to 30 references. Since topics for debate are by nature controversial, cited references should emphasize recent publications. You may use one single-panel figure. If reproducing a figure from a previously published manuscript, please send permission to reprint right away. Do not cite any unpublished data, including abstracts. If you wish to cite any “in press” manuscripts, you must submit copies of the manuscripts just as soon as the article is accepted so that they can be shared with the author of the opposite side of the debate. You may choose a co-author for your manuscript if you wish. We also encourage you to recruit co-authors from laboratories outside of your own.
It is important that both Point and Counterpoint manuscripts be submitted to the Journal before each set of authors view the opponent’s manuscript.
When both manuscripts are received and judged to be acceptable, each presenter is sent their opponent's manuscript and given 7 days to submit a rebuttal containing up to 400 words; in addition, each author may include up to 10 references. Please also reference the original article you are refuting. The time to write a response may seem brief, but it is longer than the presenter gets on the podium in front of a live audience. New evidence should not be unfolded in your rebuttal. Instead, the rebuttal should consist of counter-arguments to the points advanced by your opponent in his or her primary manuscript. The listing and numbering of references in the rebuttal need to be independent of the initial portion of the manuscript.
When submitting the manuscript and the rebuttal, please state the number of words on the cover sheet. Manuscripts that exceed word or reference limitation will be returned to the authors. Articles in the pro-and-con series are subject to peer-review by the editor and editorial consultants, and acceptance cannot be guaranteed in advance.
Please be aware that we are soliciting brief commentaries from the readership on your Point: Counterpoint manuscript. These will be published simultaneously with your debate both online and in the print publication as well as in subsequent issues of the journal. You will be sent these commentaries prior to publication and given a chance to submit a final comment of your own (up to 500 words and 5 references). If you have any questions, please contact the Editor by e-mail at jappleic@ucsd.edu.