In 2001, in an unprecedented move, the Editor of the "Journal of Clinical Psychology" agreed to publish, "without peer review," five articles on TFT of Callahan's choosing; these were: Callahan, 2001b and 2001c; Pignotti & Steinberg, 2001; Sakai et al., 2001; and Johnson et al., 2001. In lieu of peer review, critiques were published alongside each article. The critics agreed that each of the five studies contained serious flaws that rendered them uninterpretable by them. They pointed out flaws which included: selecting only successful cases; focusing on a diversity of problems; failure to use a control group; failure to control for placebo effect, demand characteristics and regression to the mean; lack of valid assessment measures; use of the SUD as the only measure of efficacy other than HRV; using an out of context physiological measure (HRV) in an inappropriate manner; and lack of a credible theory. One of the critics, Harvard psychology professor Richard J. McNally, noting the lack of evidence for TFT, stated that “Until Callahan has done his homework, psychologists are not obliged to pay any attention to TFT.” Psychologist John Kline wrote that Callahan's article “represents a disjointed series of unsubstantiated assertions, ill-defined neologisms, and far-fetched case reports that blur boundaries between farce and expository prose”. One of the original authors of the non-peer reviewed studies later retracted her conclusions and has reversed her earlier favorable position on TFT. The only other studies adduced in support of TFT are ones that were reported on in Callahan's newsletter, "The Thought Field", and an uncontrolled study on Voice Technology consisting of radio show call-ins in a proprietary archive of a journal of collected papers on applied kinesiology. Callahan's claims about the TFT Voice Technology having unique properties and being on a par with hard science were not supported in a controlled experiment that used random sequences vs. TFT VT.