As such things happen, several manuscripts in the present volume were under review prior to the ones that appeared in Volume I of the Annals. A major difficulty encountered in the preparation of these volumes- apart from working up to three years in advance of publication-is elic- iting appropriate commentary. If this format is to succeed, the com- mentary must be both engaging to the reader and satisfying to the author. It is not yet clear how successful we have been in this rega...
As such things happen, several manuscripts in the present volume were under review prior to the ones that appeared in Volume I of the Annals. A major difficulty encountered in the preparation of these volumes- apart from working up to three years in advance of publication-is elic- iting appropriate commentary. If this format is to succeed, the com- mentary must be both engaging to the reader and satisfying to the author. It is not yet clear how successful we have been in this regard and, indeed, we do not feel bound to publish commentary with each manuscript that is accepted for publication. Nevertheless, we do invite readers‘ commentaries on published materials. The contributions by Jan Smedslund and Benjamin Wolman in this volume have been through an inordinately long publication lag. We have been in receipt of both manuscripts since early in 1981 and Dr. Smedslund, especially, has since clarified and advanced his views else- where in print. K. B. Madsen and Joseph Rychlak submitted their man- uscripts in the fall of 1981 while Michael Hyland and J. Philippe Rushton had first drafts of their manuscripts accepted for publication in the fall of 1982. We are grateful to our contributors for their expressed com- mitment to the Annals and assure potential contributors that the delay in publication is a mere matter of getting the series off the ground.
