Overview

Janice Miner Holden’s editorial work reflects a commitment to advancing near-death studies as a rigorous scholarly field while remaining attentive to the philosophical and practical implications of the research. Since assuming the editorship of the Journal of Near-Death Studies in 2008, she has navigated the complex terrain of parapsychology-adjacent research, balancing empirical investigation with openness to phenomena that challenge conventional materialist frameworks. Her editorial perspectives emerge not from abstract theorizing but from sustained engagement with the actual work of researchers, the methodological challenges they face, and the broader questions their findings raise for science and worldview.

Holden’s approach to editorial stewardship reflects her background as both a scholar of near-death experiences and a professional counselor. This dual perspective has informed her conviction that rigorous research and human welfare are inseparable concerns. Her editorials consistently emphasize that the field’s credibility depends on unflinching attention to evidence, willingness to engage skeptical critique, and transparency about the limits of current knowledge.

Editorial stewardship and journal leadership

When Holden assumed the editorship, she inherited a journal that had already established itself as the dominant publication venue for near-death studies research. In her inaugural foreword, she acknowledged the towering legacy of her predecessor, Bruce Greyson, while articulating her own vision for the journal’s future.¹ She noted that through 2005, the Journal of Near-Death Studies had published 15 times more articles on near-death experiences than the journal with the next highest publication rate, and that articles from the journal represented the vast majority of scholarly publications on the topic.

Rather than attempt to replicate Greyson’s approach, Holden committed to “stand on the shoulders of this giant,” building on established standards while introducing innovations suited to contemporary scholarly practice.¹ One of her first initiatives was the creation of a “Brief Reports” section, designed to accommodate research that employed novel methodologies or presented preliminary findings that might not warrant the full treatment of a standard article. This structural innovation reflected her recognition that the field’s development required space for exploratory work alongside definitive studies.

Holden has also been attentive to the practical dimensions of journal management. In 2015, she oversaw the implementation of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for all journal articles, both retrospectively and prospectively, making the journal’s entire archive accessible through standard online research infrastructure.² When analysis revealed that the journal’s DOI formatting was creating a 54% error rate in citation retrieval (compared to a 4% baseline error rate across all DOIs) she moved to correct the formatting, demonstrating her commitment to removing barriers to researcher access.

In 2025, Holden oversaw another significant transition: shifting the journal’s default delivery mode from hard copy to electronic PDF, reducing production costs while accelerating subscriber access to new issues by approximately one month.⁵ These administrative decisions reflect a consistent editorial philosophy: the journal’s primary obligation is to facilitate the dissemination and accessibility of rigorous scholarship on near-death and related phenomena.

Methodological rigor and debate

A defining feature of Holden’s editorship has been her willingness to publish substantive scholarly disagreement. Rather than treating controversial topics as liabilities to be managed, she has created space for rigorous debate while maintaining exacting standards for evidence and argumentation. This approach is exemplified in her handling of the Pam Reynolds case, arguably the most discussed single near-death experience in the scholarly literature.

Reynolds’ near-death experience during a revolutionary brain surgery procedure in 1991 generated decades of controversy regarding whether her reported veridical perceptions could be explained by physical processes alone. In Fall 2011, Holden devoted an entire journal issue to this debate, publishing articles by anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee arguing for a purely physical explanation, responses by Stuart Hameroff and Chris Carter offering rebuttals, and Woerlee’s rejoinder.³ Rather than attempting to resolve the dispute definitively, Holden acknowledged that “retrospective veridical NDE cases like Reynolds’ provide imperfect data that probably can never result in definitive evidence either for or against the hypothesis that accurate perception can occur through non-physical means.”³

This editorial approach reflects Holden’s conviction that scholarly progress depends on transparent engagement with disagreement. She has consistently invited authors whose work receives critical review to respond, and she has invited critics to rejoin responses, a practice that honors the adversarial collaboration model while maintaining journal space constraints. Her editorials frequently acknowledge when scholars approaching the same data from different perspectives reach different conclusions, framing this not as failure but as an honest reflection of the epistemological challenges inherent in studying phenomena at the boundaries of conventional science.

Holden has also been attentive to emerging methodological challenges. In 2024, she addressed the proliferation of artificial intelligence in scholarly work, publishing a guest editorial by Bruce Greyson describing his discovery that he had been misquoted in a manuscript due to AI-generated “hallucinations.”⁶ Rather than simply banning AI use, she worked with editorial board members to develop guidelines for authors’ responsible use of AI in manuscript preparation, recognizing that the technology is neither inherently good nor bad but requires careful governance.

Accessibility and innovation

Beyond traditional editorial functions, Holden has worked to make near-death studies research accessible to diverse audiences. She has published educational research examining how to improve healthcare providers’ knowledge and attitudes about near-death experiences, recognizing that the field’s ultimate value depends partly on practitioners’ ability to respond supportively to patients and clients who disclose such experiences.

In Fall 2017, she published two articles on NDE education: one examining the effects of an educational intervention on counselors’ knowledge and attitudes, and another investigating the impact of an educational documentary on undergraduate psychology students’ understanding of NDEs.⁷ These publications reflect Holden’s conviction that scholarship on near-death experiences should inform practice, and that the field’s credibility depends partly on demonstrating that education about NDEs produces measurable improvements in how professionals respond to experiencers.

Holden has also championed the publication of diverse research methodologies. Her editorials highlight historical analyses of near-death-like experiences in ancient and indigenous cultures, qualitative investigations of experiencers’ narratives, quantitative studies employing large samples, and exploratory case studies.⁸ This methodological pluralism reflects her recognition that understanding near-death experiences requires multiple approaches, each with distinct strengths and limitations.

Worldview questions and scholarly neutrality

Perhaps Holden’s most philosophically significant editorial initiative came in Summer 2023, when she devoted an entire special issue to the question of whether the International Association for Near-Death Studies should endorse a post-physicalist worldview, one acknowledging that materialist assumptions cannot accommodate all known phenomena related to near-death experiences and consciousness.⁴

In her editorial introducing this special issue, Holden argued that the time had come for IANDS to move beyond strict neutrality on worldview questions, supported by three considerations: the accumulation of empirical evidence, the application of reflective judgment theory, and the reported worldviews of IANDS members and friends.⁴ She then invited 23 prominent scholars in near-death studies to respond to her position, ultimately publishing 17 responses organized alphabetically by author surname. Rather than attempting to synthesize these diverse perspectives, she presented them as a genuine scholarly conversation, allowing readers to engage the full range of positions.

This editorial decision reflects Holden’s conviction that scholarly organizations have responsibilities beyond mere data collection. While maintaining rigorous standards for evidence, she has argued that professional bodies may appropriately take positions on worldview questions when empirical evidence and scholarly consensus warrant such positions. At the same time, her approach to publishing responses demonstrates her commitment to intellectual humility, to presenting multiple perspectives rather than imposing editorial conclusions.

Holden’s editorials frequently emphasize the distinction between what the evidence supports and what conclusions scholars draw from that evidence. She has noted that while many near-death studies researchers consider the weight of evidence to support the hypothesis that consciousness can function apart from the brain during reversible death, the implications of this finding for understanding irreversible death remain genuinely uncertain.⁹ This careful epistemological stance (affirming what evidence supports while acknowledging what remains speculative) characterizes her editorial voice.

Editorial philosophy and field development

Across her editorials, Holden articulates a consistent philosophy regarding the journal’s role in field development. She emphasizes that the Journal of Near-Death Studies serves not only researchers but also near-death experiencers themselves, healthcare providers, and the broader public seeking to understand consciousness and human development. This expansive conception of the journal’s audience informs her decisions about what research to publish and how to frame it.

She has consistently advocated for what might be called “rigorous openness”, maintaining exacting standards for evidence and argumentation while remaining genuinely open to phenomena that challenge conventional frameworks. This stance requires resisting both uncritical acceptance of extraordinary claims and reflexive dismissal of them. Her editorials model this balance by engaging skeptical critiques seriously while also publishing research that skeptics would find problematic.

Holden has also emphasized the importance of terminology and conceptual clarity. When scholars in the field used inconsistent terminology regarding electromagnetic and environmental effects among near-death experiencers, she worked with researchers to develop a proposed lexicon, recognizing that scientific progress depends partly on shared language.¹⁰ Similarly, she has engaged in careful discussion of concepts like terminal lucidity and paradoxical lucidity, publishing scholarly correspondence that refines terminology and clarifies distinctions.