Policy on Point-counterpoints (PCP’s). Revised 12 August 2003

Point-counterpoints have been published in Systematic Biology in the past and have been a very effective teaching tool for our readers. Because they represent a clear exposition of two sides of an important debate, they should be influential and highly cited. There was unanimous agreement among the editorial board and the council of SSB that the number of PCP’s should be increased. Guidelines follow.

A point-counterpoint could be fashioned after the format used by Felsenstein and Sober (1986, Systematic Zoology 35:617-626), which in turn was patterned on the exchange between Harper and Platnick (1978, Systematic Zoology 27:354-362).

A list of questions or statements would be formulated (one to five points). Then, Author (or group) number 1 starts with one question/statement to which author (or group) 2 would respond. Author 2’s response could simply be an answer to which Author 1 would respond, or Author 2 could also include a question for Author 1 as part of the answer.

For multiple questions, the two authors could divide up the questions such that they take turns being the first one to respond or both could agree that one person would always lead off. The two authors/groups would continue going back and forth until they came to some kind of conclusion (which might simply be that they still don't agree, or more hopefully they could find some common ground). On some occasions, three authors or groups may be involved in the debate but more than that would be difficult to follow.

The idea would be to inform the readership (some of whom are naïve) about how each side sees the main issues in a concise, non-jargon-laden manner. The total contribution should be no more than 7,000 words (or 3,500 words each author or group of authors). Given approximately 1000 words per journal page this will yield a point-counterpoint of approximately seven pages not including figures or references. Figures should be limited to two per author/group.

Additional notes:

Participants don't have to stick strictly to the format of the Sober article. This is a newly revived feature so the participants can make suggestions as they go along. My feeling is that both (all) sides should be able to edit any of their own statements at any time. The idea of the PCP is that it is a service to our readers. We are not trying to catch anyone making mistakes or prevent anyone from changing their mind. Therefore, if opinions change while the PCP is being written, it is OK to change the text. It shows that the PCP is also a good learning experience for the debaters. If the authors want to leave the traces of this learning experience embedded in the text that is OK but if not that is OK too. What we want in the end is an explanation of each of point of view. We want to clear up any disagreements based on misunderstanding and leave only disagreements based on different points of view or frames of reference. Readers should be able to clearly understand what each side is saying (i.e. include a minimum of specialized terminology and define clearly what remains). If one group or both groups have changed their previously published ideas over time (as is normal in the progress of science), this should be recognized. Otherwise confusion could result. If the participants want to set up some rules, they should simply suggest them to each other with a CC to the Editor and Managing Editor.