Why peer-reviewed research funding may negate the critical benefits of open journal review: It is not the show, but the dough.

In commenting on a paper by W. W. Surwillo (see record 1986-18404-001) regarding the peer review process, the present author suggests that the researcher who wishes to completely ensure against having his/her laboratory closed down may decide that he/she cannot afford to alienate any peer in the journal review process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Enhance the journals, not the review process.

Comments on S. Epstein's (83-12802) suggestions for improving the journal review process. Levenson discusses the actions journal editors should take when there are discrepant opinions between authors and reviewers, and the need for publication outlets, other than regular articles, in all journals published by the American Psychological Association. To help the review process maintain its own professional competence, the development of a database containing the names of psychologists who are experts in their fields is suggested. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A perspective on the journal review process.

Comments on S. Epstein's (see record 1996-12802-001) suggestions for improving the journal review process. Rabinovich disagrees with Epstein's recommendation to provide the identity of the reviewers. The author discusses providing positive feedback to authors, providing suggestions for alternative methods of conducting research, and viewing the review process as mentoring as ways to improve the review process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Out of the frying pan: A reply to Sommer and Sommer.

Comments on suggestions offered by R. Sommers and B. A. Sommers (see record 1984-10654-001) for ensuring the validity and credibility of reported research results. It is suggested that, instead of requiring replication as part of all journal article submissions, randomization tests could be applied to data as a means of evaluation. Flaws in the present journal review process are outlined, and the assertion that only articles from refereed journals can be trusted is questioned. The validity of findings from technical reports and unpublished reports is supported. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editorial.

At the conclusion of his tenure as Editor of the journal Psychoanalytic Psychology applauds the peer review process and thanks those colleagues who have undertaken the task of editorial review and whose contributions are as pivotal as those of authors in the success of any professional or scientific journal. He acknowledges that the journal must reflect the diversity of points of view and interests of the division membership, and that Division 39 has over the past decade, been beset with political controversy that appears to have been resolved for the most part. He congratulates the incoming Editor, Dr. Joseph Reppen, and notes the issues he feels that the Division and the Journal will face in the near future. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Participation and influence in publication review proceedings: A reply.

Replies to the critique by R. Crandall of D. Lindsey's (see record 1977-30147-001) study of editorial board membership. Lindsey's analysis of staffing data for journal editorial boards in psychology is extended to include an examination of the publication review process as it is carried out by the editorial board members. Psychology appears to appoint individuals who are characterized by superior scientific achievement to enhance the prestige of psychology journals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Proposed Book Review Journal: Comment.

Comments on "Book Reviewing in American Psychological Journals" by Girden and Dennis in the June 1954 American Psychologist. The comment author presents an argument against the establishment of a book review journal by APA. While it is true that the establishment of such a journal would constitute a reorganization of APA's present activities, it would require that the subscriber to present journals either subscribe to this new journal, which may carry a large portion of reviews in which he has no interest, or be deprived of the reviews of books in his field of special interest which currently appear in the journals to which he is already subscribing. It is unreasonable to expect an editor to have the breadth of acquaintance with the various fields of psychology that would be necessary to decide which books merit review or to have the breadth of acquaintance with psychologists in the various fields that would be necessary to enable him judiciously to select reviewers in all of the specialties. It seems difficult to understand how a book review journal could be operated without any pronounced increase in the number of pages that the APA now devotes to this function and still provide "a more complete coverage of psychological books." Several disadvantages to establishing a book review journal are summarized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychoanalysis, feminism, and the politics of exclusion: A rejoinder.

In a book review published in this journal, Fine (see record 2003-05429-013) criticized Lerner's (see record 2006-00700-000) The Dance of Anger: A Woman's Guide to Changing the Patterns of Intimate Relationships and raised broader concerns about the popularization of psychological ideas and about feminist psychoanalytic theory. This rejoinder takes issue with his criticisms, arguing that there is a legitimate place for careful popular presentation of psychological knowledge and that feminist psychoanalytic writings represent a serious and thoughtful body of theoretical work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Journal quality: Problems with definitions.

J. A. Meacham (see record 1985-27733-001) has recommended that journal size be considered in determining estimates of journal quality and that textbook citations of journal publications be used in rankings that may guide decisions about tenure and promotion. However, the ranker may not know how to define journal size or where to look for appropriate citations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology and Aging: The first 20 years.

This article provides a review of the first 20 years of Psychology and Aging, the American Psychological Association's first and only scholarly journal devoted to the topic of aging. The authors briefly summarize its history, its contributions to the study of aging, and its broader status as a scholarly publication. One theme highlighted in our review is the diversity of content in the journal throughout its history. Another is the strong impact that articles published in the journal have had on both basic and applied topics in aging. Efforts to encompass the breadth of topics and methodologies in aging research while retaining excellent quality remain the exciting but essential challenge for Psychology and Aging. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Commentary on two articles concerning generalized and specific cognitive deficits.

This is a commentary on essays in this journal issue by M. E. Strauss (see record 2001-17627-002) and R. A. Knight and S. A Silverstein (see record 2001-17627-003) on research methodology for studying cognitive deficits. Concentrating mostly on Knight and Silverstein's article, the authors review the psychometric issues in the matched-task design, analyze Knight and Silverstein's "process-oriented" objections to that design, and scrutinize their methods for studying cognitive deficits, examining 2 of their empirical studies as examples of those methods. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Journal quality: The problem of size.

Asserts, based on the data of J. D. Hogan and R. Hedgepeth (see record 1984-06338-001), that the size of a journal can impact estimates of journal quality. It is argued that a high-quality journal that publishes a few articles each year will not be ranked high unless the number of citations is adjusted for journal size. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editorial statement of the American Psychologist: II.

Editing a journal that combines professional, scientific, and public policy interests is a strange business, indeed. Although this January 1987 issue of the American Psychologist (AP) begins the second year of my editorship, it is the first issue that actually reflects my editorial input and that of my associate editors. This state of affairs results from both the usual 9- to 10-month publication lag and the normal transition process between two editorial terms. It seems worthwhile to use my "first" issue as an opportunity to comment on the editorial direction of the journal, about the editorial process itself (and some changes we have made in it), and about some specific modifications in format that you will see in coming issues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editorial Note.

Announces that, as approved by the Board of Directors and the Council of the APA, beginning in January 1956, a new journal, Contemporary Psychology, will be published by the Association. This journal will review books, monographs, films and related publications-a function presently performed by four different APA journals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The collegial role of editors and reviewers.

Prompted by D. H. Eichorn and G. R. VandenBos's (see record 1986-15484-001) article, the author describes his initiation into the journal publication process and reminds editors and reviewers that they have a collegial responsibility to develop contributing researchers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)