Reply to Stagner.

This is written in response to Ross Stagner's comments (see record 2005-11890-003) concerning the publication of books of readings. First, it is my experience that it is far easier to author a book than edit readings. I don't assume that people who write the original articles that finally find themselves in a book of readings are any more creative than the editors. I don't know how much of a reputation any one gets from authorship or editing a readings book. As for "good solid cash" (to use Stagner's words) I have yet to see some and my experience is not unique. I have paid out a considerable amount of money in secretarial fees alone. If I recoup the money I have expended I will be fortunate. As for so-called profits, if I send one copy of the book to each author and his co-author(s) who contributed an article for a book of readings--well, there goes the "good solid cash." Second, there are many articles that are rescued from the scrap pile by a book of readings. My suggestion is that after the editor of a readings book recoups his expenses in preparing the book, copies of the book be sent to clinics or libraries which are on a limited budget. Copies may even be sent to some of the "underprivileged nations." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Preparing Scholarly Articles for Publication in Professional Journals.

Preparing articles for publication in the International Journal of Play Therapy and other scholarly journals requires strict compliance with the journal's formatting requirements, an organized and accurate presentation of timely, meaningful content, and careful, high quality writing. Improving articles in these areas will increase their potential for publication and for impacting readers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Comment on summary report of journal operations": Comment on Roediger.

Comments on an article by H. L. Roediger III (see record 1990-58906-001) concerning the number of subscribers to APA journals. Roediger concluded that most APA members feel no need to keep up with the work in the primary journals. Blackman points out that many people keep up with journals by reading in university and hospital libraries, by sending for reprints of studies abstracted in Psychological Abstracts, and by other literature review methods. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on "Suggestions for a Radical Change".

Comments on "Suggestions for a Radical Change", by Mitchell Berkun (1954). Berkun's intriguing ideas seem both exciting and practical. The biggest problem would be the complexity of carrying out the system recommended, but once in function for a year, certain problems could perhaps be ironed out as a result of this initial experience. Factors improved by Berkun's system of binding articles separately are summarized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment.

Comments on an article by Robert L. Ebel (see record 1962-05654-001). According to the commentator, the author has not given a new code to the profession, but rather provided a scholarly rationalization for things as they too frequently exist at present. The commentator continues to discuss the issues of test validity throughout the article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Royalty Payments.

In the April American Psychologist (1962, 17, 207), Ross Stagner raised the question of royalty payments. Stagner proposed that the American Psychological Association receive "a share of royalties, based on the number of articles reprinted from APA journals" and asked for comments from other psychologists regarding his proposal. The commentator discusses this issue and raises some questions, including (a) to whom, if anyone, should readings royalties be paid and (b) what basis for distribution should be followed? (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

French psychological journals: 1966-67.

Subject matter, publication data, and type of references are examined for 9 major French journals. Editors reported an average rejection rate of 15% and a publication lag of 10 months. The average French article is 21 pages long and has 17 citations. Multiple authorships are rare. Almost all journals receive governmental support. Dissimilar to both US and Canadian practices is the high percentage of foreign citations which range from 35 to 75%. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Submissions to APA publications.

Describes two attempts to publish methodologically oriented articles in APA journals, separated by over two years, and differing considerably in content but otherwise virtually identical, which have pointed up some aspects of APA publication policies (or lack of same) which appear to be highly inconsistent with the purposes of a scientific organization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Publication trends in psychology: 1894-1954.

"Based upon a random sample of entries from each fifth volume of the Psychological Index and the Psychological Abstracts, trends in the area of subject interest, journal sources of psychological literature, and language have been analyzed. Of the 12 subject fields, those including general, physiological, perceptual and motor material have declined, while applied literature has increased. Citations from psychological and educational journals have increased; from other fields have remained steady or declined. German shows a spectacular decline, while English has increased at a similar rate." Graphic representations of the data for successive decades beginning with 1894 are presented. A check of the trends based upon content analysis of Ladd's Elements of Physiological Psychology in 1887, the revision by Ladd and Woodworth in 1911, Woodworth's Experimental Psychology in 1938, and Woodworth and Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology in 1954 provides an independent source of data which verify the general trends indicated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Needed: A publication of negative results: Comment.

Comments that in the March 1959 issue of the Journal of the American Statistical Association (Vol. 54, No, 285) an article appeared by Theodore D. Sterling, a psychologist, entitled "Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance -or Vice Versa." As the title suggests the author feels that negative experimental results are seldom published. He also feels that experiments are seldom replicated. The present author recounts the suggestion by Sterling that journals devoted to reporting experimental results include a section reserved for articles which present no evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

APA journals: Suggestions for a radical change.

The comments in recent issues on APA publication difficulties (Amer. Psychologist, 9, 37-40) have stirred me to present for consideration the following rather radical suggestions. Perhaps all articles of APA journals might be issued as separates, even though the existing journal names (and editors' domains) would remain unchanged. Perhaps all articles of APA journals might be issued as separates, even though the existing journal names (and editors' domains) would remain unchanged. To be accepted by an editor, an article must be accompanied by an abstract substantially ready for inclusion in the Psychological Abstracts. The "personality" of each APA journal will be maintained, but the physical appearance of the separately issued articles would be standardized. Prepaid subscribers would purchase only those articles chosen on the basis of regularly issued prepublication abstracts, and only enough copies of each article to meet its demand will be printed. (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)     

Retain the Original Data! Comment.

Comments on how few authors of APA journal articles retain their original data. Some authors have suggested that the APA journals take steps to insure that authors store their data for future reference. The commentator provides specific reasons for the retention of original data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Abstracts Revisited.

This commentary reports the results of a survey of the Psychological Abstracts for 1959 "to determine the language in which each book or article was originally published." These results are compared to the results of a similar survey of the 1950 Psychological Abstracts (American Psychologist, 1951, 6, 179). In 1950 a reading knowledge of English and French made approximately 93% of the current technical literature available to the psychologist; in 1959 this figure was reduced to approximately 89%. In 1950 a reading knowledge of English, French, and German would cover approximately 95% of the current literature; in 1959 this figure is also 95%. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Publication Productivity of Clinical Psychologists: A Correction Factor for Faculty Size.

Comments on the original article "Productivity ratings of psychology programs based on publications in clinical journals," by C. J. Golden, S. Kuperman, and D. Osmon (see record #198128771-001), which sought to identify the relative standing of clinical psychology programs by evaluating their frequency of publication in the major clinical journals. While the current authors feel Golden et al provide impressive and useful data on the relative productivity of different academic and nonacademic psychology programs with respect to their contributions to the clinical psychology literature, they also maintain that one point Golden et al failed to address is that faculties tend to vary greatly in size across institutions. Thus, the rankings of programs provided by Golden et al probably reflect different size programs, with larger programs contributing more to the clinical literature simply because there are more bodies available to engage in such activities than is true of smaller programs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on Publication Trends in American Psychology.

Comments on the increase of publications between 1953 and 1958 in American psychology. Recommendations were offered on how to handle the increase in publications. Solutions such as a modification of the editorial policy and a system supporting shorter papers were provided. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Productivity Ratings of Psychology Programs Based on Publications in Clinical Journals": Correction.

Reports an error in the original article "Productivity Ratings of Psychology Programs Based on Publications in Clinical Journals" by Charles J. Golden, Sally Kuperman, and David Osmon (Professional Psychology, 1980, Vol. 11, No. 5, pp. 797-806). In Table 10 on page 804, Larue D. Carter Hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, is incorrectly listed as a general hospital. It is a state mental hospital. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 1981-28771-001.) 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Are power analyses of published literature valuable?

Spence (2001), in a response to the author's power analysis of three health psychology-related journals (Maddock & Rossi, see record 2000-14051-009), noted that these types of analyses are not particularly informative because 90% of published studies report statistically significant findings (Sterling, Rosenbaum, & Weinkam, 1995). Spence also made the assumption that most of the effects in the published studies were likely to be medium or large, so the lack of power for small effects is not a problem. J. Maddock disagrees with this assumption, and presents several explanations in defense of his argument. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)