EDITORIAL

Our Vision for Autism Research

One dilemma facing all researchers is the choice of where

to submit their next paper. The scientific content of a

Journal, its readership, impact factor, the speed of

publication and how editors dealt with previous submis-

sions are some of the factors that authors consider when

choosing a venue for their manuscript. In launching a

new publication, editors should convey to potential

authors the essence of a Journal in order to attract those

papers that will establish its future character. In introdu-

cing this second issue we articulate some of the editorial

considerations underlying publication priorities.

Autism Research was established by the International

Society for Autism Research (INSAR) to satisfy the

pressing need for a publication outlet for high quality

papers dealing with the full range of basic and beha-

vioural sciences that underlie research into autism

spectrum disorders. The Journal is also an important

vehicle for INSAR, whose aim is to advance autism

research. The Editors recognize that these goals are well

served by publishing both positive and negative findings.

Exciting new findings, especially from hypothesis driven

research, are the bread and butter of scientific journals,

and they are sought for this journal as well.

Nevertheless, research into autism is also marked by

intriguing findings that have been neither replicated nor

refuted, either because replication has never been

attempted or because a failure to replicate has not been

published. Consequently, in order to support new

hypotheses or new data, authors may refer to unrepli-

cated findings, which may simply be false positives.

Scientific advance in part requires identifying those

hypotheses that are not supported by empirical data

and on the publication of definitive negative studies.

There is usually a bias against the publication of negative

findings in research. The field of autism research is one

with a large, potentially vulnerable lay audience that

actively follows research. Therefore, the Editors consider

it important to publish both replications and non-

replications to foster the ultimate emergence of a

balanced picture.

At times, the pressure to report positive findings in the

face of nonsignificant results from primary analyses may

lead authors to perform ad hoc analyses to support an

auxiliary hypothesis. Thus, a hypothesis that is refuted in

the main finds support in a subgroup of data. Determin-

ing scientific merit in such cases can be difficult for

reviewers and Editors because the findings may help

describe true heterogeneity, or they may be spurious.

Subgroup analyses planned a priori, statistical limitations

created by subdividing data and plausibility are all factors

that help assess validity in such cases.

Statistical power is an important concern, and some

studies lack statistical power at the outset. The issue is

particularly problematic with respect to genetic studies,

in which associations observed in modest-sized samples

are given undue weight; these issues will be discussed in

more detail in a future editorial. For this reason, we ask

authors to provide a statement regarding power in all

submitted manuscripts. Studies that are preliminary, or

perhaps out of necessity under-powered, should be

submitted as short reports and these limitations noted.

Another phenomenon in autism research over the

decades has been a tendency for some influential

hypotheses to lack explanatory power. Autism is a

complex disorder involving both deficits in multiple

domains of functioning and a very wide range of severity.

Authors should to state clearly which aspects of ASDs

their hypotheses and data address and which aspects of

the disorder and its full range of expression are not

accounted for.

The phenomenon of ‘‘selective referencing’’ is a

troubling issue for scientific publishing in general.

Examples include instances in which manuscripts con-

tain only citations that support the authors’ views or

referencing may appear to over-represent subset of

groups, perhaps even driven by geography. Neither

scenario provides a fair and balanced basis upon which

a proper judgement can be made about the merits of a

given study. Referencing should be broadly inclusive.

Both supportive and contradictory citations and text

should be provided to the reader to place the study at

hand in a balanced context.

What sort of papers would Autism Research like to

publish? In addition to definitive advances in specific

areas, manuscripts that address the complexity and

heterogeneity in autism directly, or contribute to its

understanding seem likely to move the field forward.

Another variable that is often neglected in studies is

variation in severity of phenotypic expression. Reliably

measuring symptom severity, and hence identifying

neurobiological and psychological differences across the

spectrum, is likely to contribute to identification of

INSAR Autism Research 1: 71–72, 2008 71

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www. interscience.wiley.com)

DOI: 10.1002/aur.18

& 2008 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

different aetiological factors, advances in treatment and

preventative strategies. Another neglected area is the

consideration of developmental processes in neurobiolo-

gical research. While psychological studies of autism are

often intrinsically developmental in their approach, our

understanding of neurobiology comes largely from

studies of adult humans and animals. A proper under-

standing of ASDs requires identifying the neurobiological

changes that accompany development.

The last decade has seen a huge expansion in molecular

and statistical genetic studies of autism. Although there is

much interest in relating genetic variation to specific

behavioural phenotypes, it is equally important to

understand the impact of genetic variation on brain

structure and function, particularly at the cellular level.

Changed attitudes to post-mortem studies of autism will

hopefully lead to an increasing number of submissions in

this area. But it will also be important to model the

consequences of genetic change in animal systems,

which involves assessing the relevance of the specific

model. This is perhaps more straightforward when an

animal model replicates specific genetic variation found

in people with ASDs. However, assessing the validity of

animal models of neuropathology or behavioural ab-

normalities without a clear and direct genetic link is

intrinsically more problematic and should be carefully

addressed by authors.

Publishing treatment research is not currently a

priority for this Journal, as this area is well provided for

by other titles. The exception to this general rule is when

an intervention reveals an important aspect of under-

lying mechanisms. This type of data would be especially

welcomed by the Journal. The Editors recognize that

scientific research does not occur in a political and

sociological vacuum, thus we welcome editorial articles

that deal cogently with funding, ethical and public

health concerns that have broad implications for the

field. If potential authors wish to determine the suit-

ability of specific manuscripts for this Journal, they

should contact any member of the Editorial team for a

discussion.

Finally, we will seek scholarly reviews of important

topics for each issue. These are solicited by the Editors

from leading experts in the field, but may also be

submitted as an unsolicited manuscript. If you wish to

provide a review, please first contact one of the editors to

discuss the idea and determine its relevance to the

journal.

To end, we are extremely pleased by the response of the

scientific community to the new Journal. Two issues have

now been published. They are available on the internet

and will soon arrive in your mailbox. Thank you for

submitting your work, and please continue. We hope that

the guidelines offered above help authors decide what

manuscripts to submit to Autism Research. In addition, we

seek feedback from you, the readers, of these first two

issues, about the complexion of the journal thus far, and

your reactions to the direction it is taking.

Anthony Bailey

James S. Sutcliffe

Robert Schultz

Sally Rogers

72 Bailey et al./Our Vision for Autism Research INSAR