Ratings of psychology journals by members of the Canadian Psychological Association.

Analysis of Canadian ratings indicates similarities with journal rankings from the American Psychological Association survey sample. Two Canadian psychology journals were ranked in the top 10. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ratings of psychology journals compared to objective measures of journal impact.

Compared the K. C. Mace and H. D. Warner (1973) list of chairpersons' ratings of psychological journal reputation and an objective measure of journal eminence. No close correspondence was found between ratings and citation counts for journals. For chairpersons, professional reputation of a journal is evaluated by criteria other than its visibility in the literature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ratings of psychology journals by members of the American Psychological Association.

In a survey of 863 members of the American Psychological Association it was found that the journals which ranked among the top 10 differed for people involved in different types of work and those with different interests. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Citation analysis of psychology journals.

Conducted a citation analysis of 57 psychology journals. Total citations to articles published in each journal in 1972 and 1973 were counted from a sample of pages (10%) in the Social Science Citation Index. Journals were rank ordered according to citation frequency per articles published in each journal during the 2-yr period. Mean citation rate per published article was .9. Spearman rank correlations between the rank order based on citations per article and the rank orders of the same journals determined by subjective evaluation in 2 previous studies by D. Koulak and H. J. Keselman (1975) and K. C. Mace and H. D. Warner (1973) were .39 and .56, respectively. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ratings of journals by and for personality psychologists.

Rank ordered reference sources used by the authors selected by editors of the Annual Review of Psychology to cover the field of personality during 1970–1976 and found the assessment to be more reliable than D. Koulack and H. J. Keselman's (see record 1976-24649-001) ratings based on responses of American Psychological Association members. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ratings of psychological journals by and for industrial-organizational psychologists.

Studied the reference sources used by selected authors covering topics in the industrial-organizational field which appeared in 9 contributions in the Annual Review of Psychology (ARP) in the years 1970 to 1976. Seven of these are compared with rank orders in the 1950's and 1960's based on available data. Consumer and engineering psychology are considered separately and are not included in the tabulated data. Also included is a comparison of the ARP rank orders with the study of D. Koulack and H. Keselman (see record 1976-24649-001). This study for the industrial area is shown to be 16 yrs behind the times as far as contemporary industrial-organizational psychology is concerned. The source materials based on the ARP yield significant information concerning the status and changing trends of the field and can serve as a frame of reference for thinking about and carrying out investigations in the field. (28 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the citation analysis of psychology journals.

Comments that M. J. White and K. G. White (see record 1978-01848-001) neglected to cite E. Garfield's (1975) citation study of psychology and behavior journals, a very important reference relevant to their work on the citation analysis of psychology journals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Assessment of journals in social science psychology.

Examines journal orderings by citations for core journals in 8 areas using both the Social Science Citation Index ratios and the proportion of citations each journal received in its corresponding American Psychological Association journal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Examining race and culture in psychology journals: The case of forensic psychology.

Scholars have argued that racial-cultural issues should be given more attention in psychological research. The American Psychological Association (APA) has instituted guidelines and policies about how to include race and culture in research, theory, and practice. Members of racial minority groups are overrepresented in populations served by forensic psychologists. This article reviews content analyses of racial-cultural issues in psychology and presents a content analysis of the treatment of race and culture in 7 forensic psychology journals between 1998 and 2003. Results indicate that less than 10% of the empirical articles addressed issues of race or culture with any depth and that the majority of the articles used a cultural deprivation paradigm. Results and recommendations for practice and future study are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An empirical method for determining core psychology journals.

Proposes a technique that yields a "discipline impact factor" (DIF) that measures the number of times a journal is cited in the core literature of a discipline, rather than in the scientific literature in its entirety. The advantage of the DIF method is that it empirically establishes a core list rather than using an a priori or more arbitrary means to determine the limits of what constitutes a core journal. (14 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comparison of the various ratings of psychology journals.

Synthesizes the ratings of psychology journals conducted by A. R. Buss and J. R. McDermott (1976), D. Koulack and H. J. Keselman (see record 1976-24649-001), J. R. Levin and T. R. Kratochwill (1976), K. C. Mace and H. D. Warner (1973), and M. J. White and K. G. White (see record 1978-01848-001). Each ratings list provides information of a different sort, and they all underestimate the importance of specialty journals to psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.

In the light of continuing debate over the applications of significance testing in psychology journals and following the publication of J. Cohen's (1994) article, the Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) of the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a committee called the Task Force on Statistical Interference (TFSI) whose charge was "to elucidate some of the controversial issues surrounding applications of statistics including significance testing and its alternatives; alternative underlying models and data transformation; and newer methods made possible by powerful computers" (BSA, personal communication, February 28, 1996). After extensive discussion, the BSA recommended that publishing an article in American Psychologist, as a way to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting may be appropriate. This report follows that request. Following each guideline are comments, explanations, or elaborations assembled by L. Wilkinson for the task force and under its review. The report is concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. The title and format of the report are adapted from an article by J. C. Bailar and F. Mosteller (1988). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Representation of women on the editorial boards of psychology journals.

In 1977, women held 17.8% of editorial appointments across a sample of 14 psychology journals, compared with only 6.8% in 1972. The sex ratio of journal editors in 1977 approximated that of senior authors publishing in the same journals. Editorial appointment serves as a form of recognition for research achievement. In this context it is possible that different criteria have been used in recruiting men and women to editorial boards. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The accuracy of reference lists in five experimental psychology journals.

Reference lists appended to published journals are of critical importance to readers of academic literature. They allow readers to retrieve cited sources, either to increase their own knowledge or to substantiate the authors' claims, and in so doing help to establish the judgment and credibility of the authors (M. F. McLellan et al, 1992). However, erroneous references detract from the intended function of reference lists by impeding retrieval searches and by providing misleading bibliographic information (G. de Lacey et al, 1985; McLellan et al, 1992). The present study aims to assess the accuracy of reference lists in five experimental psychology journals published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1999 (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, and Journal of Experimental Psychology: General). Perhaps the most disturbing result from this study is the finding that authors were incorrectly cited in 12% of reference list citations, with errors in the initials of the authors being the most common. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Productivity ratings of psychology programs based on publications in clinical journals.

Sought to identify the relative standing of clinical psychology programs by evaluating their frequency of publication in the major clinical journals. In addition, the relative contribution of university programs, hospital programs, medical centers, and other institutions to the clinical literature was investigated. It was found that although American Psychological Association (APA)-approved university clinical programs are responsible for the largest number of articles in the sample examined, (14 journals for the years 1975, 1976, and 1977), 6 of every 10 articles were published either by non-APA-approved academic programs or by individuals in other institutional settings. The general reputation of universities did not reflect their productivity in the clinical journals. The article includes an analysis of the major sources of publication in the clinical literature and an evaluation of the meaning of these findings for clinical psychology. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An evaluation of 80 psychology journals based on the Science Citation Index..

Ranked 80 psychology journals and those from closely related fields in terms of their impact factors (average citations per article) where the numerator for the impact factor was based on the total number of citations accruing to 1972–1973 articles in that journal in the 1974 Science Citation Index. The top 3 journals were Psychological Review, Cognitive Psychology, and Psychological Bulletin. Comparisons are made with a ranking study conducted by M. J. White and K. G. White (1977). For related article, see PA, Vol 56:4649. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association.

Institutions whose members were leading contributors of articles in the 13 journals published by the American Psychological Association over the last 10 years are identified. Composite productivity scores over the 13 journals are then compared with previous reputational ratings of institutions in psychology (Jones, Lindzey, & Coggeshall, 1982; Roose & Andersen, 1970) and also with previous productivity data (Cox & Catt, 1977; Jones et al., 1982). The overall relationship between reputation and productivity is fairly strong. However, school reputation is differentially related to productivity in specific journals. A relatively strong overall relationship is also noted between past and current productivity, but the degree of stability varies greatly from journal to journal. Schools that showed remarkable shifts over time in productivity and/or reputation are identified. Finally, overall productivity scores are adjusted by faculty size. Small but productive schools tend to emerge in this analysis. These results highlight schools in which a large proportion of the faculty publish in APA journals. Results of the entire study are discussed with regard to advising students in their selection of psychology graduate programs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cultivating the field of psychology: Psychological journals at the turn of the century and beyond.

Prominent psychologists, including G. Stanley Hall, James Mark Baldwin, and James McKeen Cattell, cultivated the field of psychological publishing with privately owned and managed journals. Hall's journals, including the American Journal of Psychology and Pedagogical Seminary, reflected his view of psychology as the empirical study of human nature and his support for applied psychology. Baldwin and Cattell's periodicals, including Psychological Review and Psychological Monographs, reflected a narrower scientific and academic view of psychology. Baldwin and Cattell were more successful editors than Hall and strategically linked their journals to the American Psychological Association (APA). The Psychological Review journals were purchased by APA in 1925. The narrower vision represented in these journals may have contributed to applied psychologists' dissatisfaction with APA during the late 1920s and early 1930s. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

U.S. psychology and world psychology.

Contends that although US psychology at present occupies a major position in world psychology, the field is growing more rapidly in many other countries. An example of international cooperation in an endeavor that could not be achieved by the psychological community of any single nation (i.e., securing the admission of the International Union of Psychological Science to the International Council of Scientific Unions) is given. A list of suggestions is presented outlining ways in which individual psychologists can take part in international psychological activities. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education and psychology.

Null hypothesis significance testing has dominated quantitative research in education and psychology. However, the statistical significance of a test as indicated by a p-value does not speak to the practical significance of the study. Thus, reporting effect size to supplement p-value is highly recommended by scholars, journal editors, and academic associations. As a measure of practical significance, effect size quantifies the size of mean differences or strength of associations and directly answers the research questions. Furthermore, a comparison of effect sizes across studies facilitates meta-analytic assessment of the effect size and accumulation of knowledge. In the current comprehensive review, we investigated the most recent effect size reporting and interpreting practices in 1,243 articles published in 14 academic journals from 2005 to 2007. Overall, 49% of the articles reported effect size—57% of which interpreted effect size. As an empirical study for the sake of good research methodology in education and psychology, in the present study we provide an illustrative example of reporting and interpreting effect size in a published study. Furthermore, a 7-step guideline for quantitative researchers is also summarized along with some recommended resources on how to understand and interpret effect size. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)