This is our second publication with this section in our journal which encourages and welcomes applied practice contributions from colleagues. These papers have an applied focus with scope for colleagues to offer work such as:

• Evaluations of practice, even if these are not methodologically at the standard required for contributions to the main journal (e.g., no control group),

• Conceptual reviews with implications for practice,

• Linked case studies in therapeutic and learning and behaviour areas of intervention,

• Reports from presentations and adapted student assignments,

• Research work put forward for psychologists' registration requirements.

Fuller details are noted below. Please contact Dr Susan Colmar, who edits this section of the journal if you wish to discuss your ideas, possibilities, probabilities or even the germ of an idea. Papers will be refereed; however criteria, particularly methodological, will be less restrictive than aiming for a full journal article. If you need some encouragement and assistance in preparing your paper, I am happy to guide you with my red pen.

Aim: to enable the publication of material such as

1. 1. small scale “research” studies where methodology is not tight but the findings are interesting and noted as preliminary and worthy of further exploration, or

2. 2. literature reviews with a specific reflective argument addressing practice, possible provocative, or

3. 3. linked casework/case studies integrated around a common original theme.

Possible Sources:

1. 1. student work including applied research studies,

2. 2. psychologists’ registration required research study (under former guidelines),

3. 3. original practitioner work,

4. 4. reports from presentations that are more in depth than is appropriate for a newsletter summary,

5. 5. work in progress, including a new generation of ideas and approaches where preliminary data is reported allowing the author to submit full findings later.

Review:

The review would be completed by 2 members of the Editorial Board OR One EB and one regular reviewer OR one EB and suitable person with knowledge in the area OR Committee Member plus 1. Susan Colmar, as Editor would screen and be responsible for this process

Review guidelines would include that the article is/has:

1. 1. of interest and relevance to members,

2. 2. well written, properly referenced and grammatical,

3. 3. a literature base, albeit small, for the work/findings/thinking,

4. 4. approximately 3000 words including references,

5. 5. contains a 120 word abstract,

6. 6. a clearly articulated argument, looks to future directions etc.; thus beyond simple description; the work needs to be analytic.