This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To Our Readers
The Archiveseditorial office is moving Oct 1.Please address all future correspondence, including submitted manuscripts and LETTERS To THE EDITOR, to Daniel X. Freedman, MD, Archives of General Psychiatry, UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute, 760 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
To the Editor.—
Recently, a group of clinical investigators attending an international conference on the origins of depression (Dahlem Conference, Berlin, November 1982) concluded that the majority of the scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals dealing with biologic factors in depression lacked a sufficient amount of essential information for other investigators or the general reader. While journals cannot reproduce all the raw data, a number of recommendations to editors, reviewers, and investigators were made by this group in the spirit of scientific advancement. Such recommendations for essential information were not meant to be interpreted as comments on research design or interpretation.The group developed a consensus with regard
David J. Kupfer, A. John Rush. Recommendations for Depression Publications. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983;40(9):1031. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790080113015