POINT:COUNTERPOINT IN Journal
of Applied Physiology
--Instructions for Authors--
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 Do
not cite any unpublished data, including abstracts.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. Email your
manuscript to Christa Tober at
cltober@wisc.edu. 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 me by e-mail at
jdempsey@wisc.edu or phone (608) 263-1732.
VIEWPOINT Articles in Journal of Applied Physiology
--Instructions for Authors--
Viewpoint articles are a type of Perspective that are intended to present
an insightful, thoroughly documented slant on a topic for which opinions are
either controversial or undecided in the literature. The hope is that the
readership will benefit from a new unconventional viewpoint on a topic. In
addition, brief commentary (250 words, 5 references) will be solicited from
the readership. Our intention is to use the journal to promote communication
among scientists and therefore further understanding. Hopefully, new ideas
and improved designs for future research on these topics should follow.
Some articles will be invited; we also welcome unsolicited manuscripts.
The Viewpoint manuscript must be concise, to the point, and bring novel
new insights on a specific problem. Refer only to already peer-reviewed,
published findings. Maximum length is 1200 words, 30 references, and one
single-panel figure. No abstract is required; the title of the
manuscript should be as descriptive as possible of the problem and or
viewpoint being presented. All manuscripts will be submitted to the usual
peer review process. Please submit these articles as a Perspective, and
mention that this is a Viewpoint article in your cover letter. Also please
provide a list of 5- 10 names and emails of individuals who may be
interested in providing commentary on your Viewpoint.
These commentaries will be published simultaneously with your Viewpoint
in the print publication. 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).
Back to JAP information page. |
