Aims and Scope of Reformulatio

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


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, artworks 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. Reformulation is committed to upholding a broadly based view of the Cognitive Analytic approach. 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, typically 2000 and exceptionally and occasionally, up to 5,000 words. Letters and book reviews should not normally exceed 1000 words. If substantial 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

After the title of the article, put the authors’ names. 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 fi rst 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: education.exeter.ac.uk/dll/studyskills/ harvard_referencing.htm – and Harvard also offer a free referencing generator which you can fi nd 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 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 fi eld who can highlight how accessible the content is.

Responses include two formats:

Editing benchmarks

  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 to through authors making the 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 specifi c submissions.
    1. Articles may be theoretical, polemical and provocative putting forward a particular viewpoint, but need to be coherent, following a logical train of thought and not meander or offer redundant (repetitive) material.
    2. Articles must have at least one original idea or novel application of an idea; they must 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 fi ndings 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

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

Search the Library

Related Articles

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

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

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

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

Other Articles in the Same Issue

A CAT Psychotherapist in Upper West Ghana
Philippa Gardner, 2013. A CAT Psychotherapist in Upper West Ghana. Reformulation, Summer, p.41,42,43.

A Reformulation of ACAT Code of Ethics and Practice and Equal Opportunities Policy?
Helen Jellicoe, 2013. A Reformulation of ACAT Code of Ethics and Practice and Equal Opportunities Policy?. Reformulation, Summer, p.6,7,8.

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

“Talking about CAT"
ACAT Administration, 2013. “Talking about CAT". Reformulation, Summer, p.14.

“We need decent people as well as decent laws”:
Beth Greenhill, Amanda Roberts and Rebecca Swarbrick, 2013. “We need decent people as well as decent laws”:. Reformulation, Summer, p.18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25.

BOOK REVIEW
Amanda Lappin and Julie Lloyd, 2013. BOOK REVIEW. Reformulation, Summer, p.50.

Clarifying an ethical dilemma with CAT in work with children and adolescents
Marie-Anne Bernardy-Arbuz, 2013. Clarifying an ethical dilemma with CAT in work with children and adolescents. Reformulation, Summer, p.28,29,30,31.

Editorial
Julie Lloyd and Rachel Pollard, 2013. Editorial. Reformulation, Summer, p.3,4.

Integrating Art Psychotherapy and Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT)
Rose Hughes, 2013. Integrating Art Psychotherapy and Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT). Reformulation, Summer, p.44,45,46,47,48,49.

Letter from the Chair of ACAT
Jason Hepple, 2013. Letter from the Chair of ACAT. Reformulation, Summer, p.5.

Reformulating Futh, the ‘hero’ of the ‘The lighthouse’ by Alison Moore
Jonathon Strauss, 2013. Reformulating Futh, the ‘hero’ of the ‘The lighthouse’ by Alison Moore. Reformulation, Summer, p.26,27.

So how truly collaborative are we?
Maryanne Steele, 2013. So how truly collaborative are we?. Reformulation, Summer, p.33,34,35.

The 16 + 1 interview
Professor Mikael Leiman, 2013. The 16 + 1 interview. Reformulation, Summer, p.51.

The Awkward Silence - Ethics of Withholding Information
Oliver O’Mara, 2013. The Awkward Silence - Ethics of Withholding Information. Reformulation, Summer, p.9,10,11,12,13.

The ethical implications of social class in the practice of CAT
Lucy Howe, 2013. The ethical implications of social class in the practice of CAT. Reformulation, Summer, p.36,37,38,39.

Three linked things: Bodies
Maggie Gray, 2013. Three linked things: Bodies. Reformulation, Summer, p.40.

When the obvious solution may not be as simple as it seems
Harriet Winstanley, 2013. When the obvious solution may not be as simple as it seems. Reformulation, Summer, p.15,16,17.

Help

This site has recently been updated to be Mobile Friendly. We are working through the pages to check everything is working properly. If you spot a problem please email support@acat.me.uk and we'll look into it. Thank you.