Discussion: View Thread

The loss of the AMR Dialogue on March 15, 2026 marks a regrettable moment in the field and for the Academy. The action violates COPE Core Practice #10: regarding the requirement of ethical and scientific journals to provide post-publication discussions. 

Contemporaneous debate over the premises, logic, math, constructs and other aspects of a proposed theory is incredibly valuable to the field. There is no substitute to reading the polished and direct points and counterpoints of motivated, expert, identified peers to best understand the strengths, weaknesses, evidence and alternative perspectives surrounding proposed new explanations of our field's more interesting phenomena. It adds to our diversity of thought, and often in intellectually stimulating ways that allow us to better see (and gain respect for) new viewpoints.  

It would have been helpful to have had a vote on such an important policy change at the Academy level, or to have been provided evidence that the benefits of these papers are now outweighed by their costs (including opportunity costs). But, alas, kings prevail.

[Perhaps an analogy might help - consider watching how such debate raises the level of discourse and provides enlightenment, even to an already entertaining analysis on an important topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkC1aK7jfLo ]