Review: Case Report: Treating Marital Resentment with Radical Honesty in Strategic Family Therapy {under peer review}

 

Reviewer: Mavile Karaieva

 

Completed: 26-03-2026 14:55

 

Recommendation: Accept Submission

 

 

	Yes	No	N/A
Is the research question clearly defined?	+
Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently detailed?	+
Is the data analysis robust and replicable?			+
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	+
Is the manuscript well organised and clearly written?	+
Are tables, figures, and supplementary material informative and necessary?		+
Is the abstract an accurate summary of the study?	+
Does the manuscript contribute meaningfully to the field?	+
Is it relevant to the field of mental health or related disciplines that are connected to the scope of the Journal?	+
Are ethical approvals and participant consents adequately described?			+
Have competing interests, funding, and data availability been transparently declared?	+

 

Comments for the authors:

 

This manuscript addresses a clinically relevant and conceptually engaging topic, offering a thoughtful case-based exploration of marital resentment through a directive therapeutic approach. The integration of Strategic Family Therapy with “radical honesty” is coherent and well aligned with ongoing discussions on therapist authority and ethical calibration in systemic practice. The case is clearly presented, and the therapeutic trajectory is generally easy to follow.

At the same time, several points would benefit from clarification. Some key concepts, particularly “radical honesty” and “strategic disruption,” remain somewhat abstract. It would strengthen the manuscript to show more explicitly how these differ in practice from familiar directive techniques (for example, standard confrontation or reframing), ideally at the level of concrete therapist actions.

The clinical material could also be made slightly more transparent. In a few places, the analysis moves ahead of the data. Including short excerpts that capture both the therapist’s intervention and the client’s immediate response would help the reader see how the proposed shifts actually unfolded.

The manuscript also occasionally leans toward broader claims (for instance, references to longer-term relational change) that go beyond what can be firmly supported by a single case. A more cautious formulation here would improve balance. Relatedly, the current presentation sometimes blurs the distinction between clinical interpretation and demonstrable interactional evidence.

A brief note on how the analysis was carried out (even in a few sentences) would make the process clearer. In addition, given the directive nature of the work, it would be important to explicitly state how informed consent was handled.

Overall, this is a strong and clinically meaningful paper. With a few clarifications and minor adjustments, it is suitable for publication.