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

 

Reviewer: Kateryna Bikir

 

Completed: 20-04-2026 03:29

 

Recommendation: Revision Required

 

 

	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 is a theoretically ambitious and clinically rich case report that makes a meaningful contribution to the strategic family therapy (SFT) literature. The integration of radical honesty and radical presence within a Haleyan framework is original and thought‑provoking, and the clinical material is compelling. That said, several areas would benefit from further development prior to publication.

First, the manuscript would be strengthened by reducing reliance on self‑citation and more consistently anchoring key claims in the broader, established literature. At present, a substantial portion of the theoretical framework draws on the author’s own unpublished or recently published works (2024, 2025a–d). To enhance scholarly rigor and situate the contribution more clearly within the field, the author is encouraged either to ground these theoretical points in established literature or to explicitly distinguish original theoretical contributions from existing scholarship.

Second, although the author appropriately acknowledges the dual role of therapist and researcher, this role requires more robust analytic management. The reflexivity section notes the use of journaling and peer consultation; however, additional detail would strengthen transparency. For example, clarification regarding the identity or role of the peer consultant, the number and timing of consultations, and the process for addressing analytic disagreements would be helpful. Given that the therapist also serves as the sole data analyst, rater, and author, further elaboration of the audit trail would help mitigate concerns related to confirmation bias.

Third, Table 2 indicates that a codebook was developed, yet the codebook itself is neither included as an appendix nor described in sufficient detail to allow for replication or evaluation. At a minimum, the manuscript would benefit from a description of the number of codes, illustrative examples of coded units, and an explanation of how reliability or analytic rigor was addressed.

Finally, there are several citation issues that require correction. Williams is cited as “Williams (2017)” in Table 2 and the text, whereas the reference list lists “Williams, B. C. (2016).” Please reconcile this discrepancy. Additionally, given the centrality of radical honesty to the manuscript, the absence of Blanton’s foundational work (Radical Honesty, 1994/2005) is notable and should be addressed.

With revision, this manuscript has the potential to be a solid contribution to the strategic family therapy and couples therapy literature.