A Double Standard for Psychosomatic Papers?

The unusual occurrence of two psychosomatic papers (pages 13 and 16) in a single issue of this Journal might suggest that they are of special interest, exceptional importance or exemplary design — or perhaps that the Journal simply has become more receptive to such contributions. Unfortunately, none of these seem to be the case. Rather, the articles are typical of certain psychosomatic studies that from time to time appeal to editors because they seem "more scientific" than usual. Indeed, they may even inspire editorials on their exceptional scientific quality and praise for scholarly refutation of earlier claims of psychosomatic relations. . . .