Aim and Scope of Reformulation

Hepple, J., Lloyd, J., Shea, C., 2011. Aim and Scope of Reformulation. Reformulation, Summer, p.56.


Editors

Jason Hepple, Julie Lloyd and Catherine Shea
Assistant Editor, Tony Ryle.
Page layout: www.alacrify.co.uk

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. The opinions expressed in this journal, whether editorials or otherwise, do not necessarily represent the official view of the Association for Cognitive Analytic Therapy or the personal views of the editors and ACAT accepts no responsibility for the content. 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.

Submission

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, and typically 2,000 words and exceptionally and occasionally, up to 5,000 words. Letters and book reviews should not normally exceed 1,000 words. If clinical material is used, it should be fully anonymised and signed consent forms must be submitted, 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.

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 can 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 others 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 may go out to review by either an expert in that particular field or by someone unfamiliar with that particular field who can highlight how accessible the content is.

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 led productively 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).

Full Reference

Hepple, J., Lloyd, J., Shea, C., 2011. Aim and Scope of Reformulation. Reformulation, Summer, p.56.

Search the Library

Related Articles

Aim and Scope of Reformulation
Hepple, J., Lloyd, J., 2010. Aim and Scope of Reformulation. Reformulation, Winter, p.45.

Aims and Scope of Reformulatio
Julie Lloyd and Rachel Pollard, 2013. Aims and Scope of Reformulatio. Reformulation, Summer, p.52.

Aims and Scope of Reformulation
Lloyd, J. and Pollard, R., 2012. Aims and Scope of Reformulation. Reformulation, Summer, pp.3-4.

Aims and Scope of Reformulation
Lloyd, J. and Pollard, R., 2012. Aims and Scope of Reformulation. Reformulation, Winter, p.45.

Aims and Scope of Reformulation
Lloyd, J., Ryle, A., Hepple, J. and Nehmad, A., 2011. Aims and Scope of Reformulation. Reformulation, Winter, p.64.

Other Articles in the Same Issue

Aim and Scope of Reformulation
Hepple, J., Lloyd, J., Shea, C., 2011. Aim and Scope of Reformulation. Reformulation, Summer, p.56.

An audit of Goodbye Letters written by clients in Cognitive Analytic Therapy
McCombie, C., Petit, A., 2011. An audit of Goodbye Letters written by clients in Cognitive Analytic Therapy. Reformulation, Summer, pp.42-45.

Book Review: Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Revolutions in Subjectivity
Pollard, R., 2011. Book Review: Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Revolutions in Subjectivity. Reformulation, Summer, pp.23-28.

Book Review: The Mindfulness Manifesto
Wilde McCormick, E., 2011. Book Review: The Mindfulness Manifesto. Reformulation, Summer, p.28.

CAT, Metaphor and Pictures: An exploration of the views of CAT therapists into the use of metaphor and pictorial metaphor
Turner, J., 2011. CAT, Metaphor and Pictures: An exploration of the views of CAT therapists into the use of metaphor and pictorial metaphor. Reformulation, Summer, pp.37-41.

Dear Reformulation
Hughes, R., 2011. Dear Reformulation. Reformulation, Summer, p.22.

Flowers by the Window: Imagining Moments in a Culturally and Politically Reflective CAT
Brown, R., 2011. Flowers by the Window: Imagining Moments in a Culturally and Politically Reflective CAT. Reformulation, Summer, pp.6-8.

Is CAT in danger of being squeezed out of the NHS?
Waft, Y., 2011. Is CAT in danger of being squeezed out of the NHS?. Reformulation, Summer, pp.18-21.

Is three a crowd or not? Working with Interpreters in CAT
Emilion, J., 2011. Is three a crowd or not? Working with Interpreters in CAT. Reformulation, Summer, p.9.

Letter from the Chair of ACAT
Hepple, J., 2011. Letter from the Chair of ACAT. Reformulation, Summer, pp.4-5.

Letter from the Editors
Hepple, J., Lloyd, J. and Shea, C., 2011. Letter from the Editors. Reformulation, Summer, p.3.

Memoirs, Myths and Movies: Using Books & Film in Cognitive Analytic Therapy
Jefferis, S., 2011. Memoirs, Myths and Movies: Using Books & Film in Cognitive Analytic Therapy. Reformulation, Summer, pp.29-33.

Six-Part Storymaking – a tool for CAT practitioners
Dent-Brown, K., 2011. Six-Part Storymaking – a tool for CAT practitioners. Reformulation, Summer, pp.34-36.

The Effectiveness of Standard Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT) with people with mild and moderate acquired brain injury (ABI): an outcome evaluation.
Rice-Varian, C., 2011. The Effectiveness of Standard Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT) with people with mild and moderate acquired brain injury (ABI): an outcome evaluation.. Reformulation, Summer, pp.49-54.

The Reformulation '16 plus one' Interview
Hepple, J., 2011. The Reformulation '16 plus one' Interview. Reformulation, Summer, p.55.

Using a template to draw diagrams in Cognitive Analytic Therapy
Jenaway, Dr. A. and Rattigan, N., 2011. Using a template to draw diagrams in Cognitive Analytic Therapy. Reformulation, Summer, pp.46-48.

What are the most dominant Reciprocal Roles in our society?
Ahmadi, J., 2011. What are the most dominant Reciprocal Roles in our society?. Reformulation, Summer, pp.13-17.

Please help us by completing our NEW visitor survey... it will only take 5 minutes. Thanks!