Once the relevant experts have been consulted on an article, the editorial team can make informed decisions on how they want to support the article. They may support it against the experts, they may require clarifications, or they may ask the author to improve his formulations before presenting this article again. The acceptability of a journal outside of related social groups strongly depends on the quality of the editorial policy, and of the quality of the experts who are consulted. Most existing journals of body psychotherapy have a number of these limitations, and none have a reviewing policy. The issue behind this is politics of knowledge.
Scientific ethics fight for a socially constructed knowledge.
This implies that publications of one expert are reviewed by other experts. Indeed it is only once experts know of each other's work, and openly discuss details of each other's claims, that a socially constructed form of knowledge becomes possible. Until today, this situation has been avoided by most body psychotherapy movements and associations. Experts seldom quote each other, and nearly never openly discuss each other's claims, as they mostly rely on patients, pupils close colleagues and friends to see how popular their ideas can become. Even if psychotherapy does not claim to be a science, it does openly claim to follow scientific ethics.