Neuroscience is well defined. Its theoretical contents are typically operationalised in terms of specific techniques (e.g., brain activation using functional MRI). In contrast, personality psychology has relied upon a diverse range of approaches, from genetics/biomarkers to narrative analysis – but at its conceptual heart has been self-report (i.e., the ability of the individual to report their unique psychological state). Think of clinical depression or anxiety. A doctor may prescribe a biologically active agent (e.g., SSRI drug) on the basis of the patient’s self-report, as assessed by a standardized questionnaire. The assumption made is that the patient’s report does relate to their underlying neurobiology – otherwise, why prescribe a drug based on such a self-report?

There will be debates around the validity and value of some of the material we publish, as there are around many aspects of personality psychology – neuroscience is less troubled by such issues. For example, empirical finding showing that self-reports do not significantly correlate with actual amygdala activity is of scientific interest. Although it is always difficult to account for null findings, the results of such studies can be intriguing, pointing in new directions (and even away from older ones) and, thus, are worth publishing.

Personality neuroscience is a challenging field – not too many years ago, it was seen by many as an oxymoron. It combines hard neurobiology with the vagaries that have often surrounded personality psychology. It must entail consideration of self-report measures – which are introspective to some extent (and there is a whole field of debate here!) – and measures of actual brain activity. New ideas are needed to link these, hitherto, disparate research areas. This can lead to some unease in those of us who prefer rather to think that we already know how the world really works – the world is rarely so convenient as to accommodate our preconceptions.

The aim of Personality Neuroscience is to publish studies that have a potential to advance the field. We do not assume we can predict the future. Methodologically rigorous and theoretically inspired papers are encouraged. We want hard data to test new hypotheses. It is in the nature of the field that some measures are self-report, introspective, and come with problematic conceptual, theoretical and philosophical assumptions. The ultimate way to decide scientific value is to put them to the empirical test.

If our papers generate debate and focus minds more closely on the relationships between self-report measures of mental states and actual neurobiological activity then they would have served a useful purpose – and criticism of any specific paper must be tempered accordingly.

We need to recall that many (if not most) scientific discoveries were seen as something of a nonsense when they were first proposed (e.g., sterilising hands before a surgical procedure)– the baby should not be thrown out with the dirty bath water as this will serve only to delay scientific progress.

In our editorial policy and practice, the merits of all submissions are carefully considered. The decision to accept a paper for publication is made after concluding that data/results are better off in the light of publication than the dark of the file drawer.

Personality Neuroscience is a fully Open Access journal that publishes papers in the neuroscience of personality. Learn more about the journal and how to submit your article at cambridge.org/pen.