scholarly journals American Psychology Is Becoming More International, But Too Slowly: Comment on Thalmayer et al. (2020)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory D. Webster ◽  
Elizabeth Mahar ◽  
Val Wongsomboon
Keyword(s):  
Multilevel Models ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
American Psychology ◽  
American Authors ◽  
Policy Proposals ◽  
Linear Decline ◽  
Over Time

Commenting on Thalmayer et al. (2020), we provide broader analysis of the national institutional affiliations of authors (2,978), editors (286), and consulting editors (2,652) from seven (vs. six) American Psychological Association (APA) journals that span over 40 (vs. 30) years. Using multilevel models, results showed that percentages of lead authors at American institutions decreased linearly and significantly and over time. Predicted mean percentages of American authors were 86% in 1978 versus 54% in 2018, a decrease of 37%. Percentages of editors and consulting editors at American institutions also decreased significantly; however the effect for consulting editors was also quadratic—the linear decline accelerated over time. Predicted mean percentages of American consulting editors at 10-year intervals (1980–2020) were 94%, 92%, 89%, 80%, and 69%. Our 2020 predicted mean of 69% American consulting editors was notably lower than Thalmayer et al.’s (2020) 2018 mean of 82%. In addition, higher-impact journals had more pronounced quadratic declines in the percentages of American consulting editors over time. American psychology continues to become more international, but not quickly enough. We concur with Thalmayer et al.’s (2020) policy proposals, especially that APA journals and their editors should actively pursue non-American associate and consulting editors.

scholarly journals American Psychology Is Becoming More International, But Too Slowly: Comment on Thalmayer et al. (2020)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory D. Webster ◽  
Elizabeth Mahar ◽  
Val Wongsomboon
Keyword(s):  
Multilevel Models ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
American Psychology ◽  
American Authors ◽  
Policy Proposals ◽  
Linear Decline ◽  
Over Time

Commenting on Thalmayer et al. (2020), we provide broader analysis of the national institutional affiliations of authors (2,978), editors (286), and consulting editors (2,652) from seven (vs. six) American Psychological Association (APA) journals that span over 40 (vs. 30) years. Using multilevel models, results showed that percentages of lead authors at American institutions decreased linearly and significantly and over time. Predicted mean percentages of American authors were 86% in 1978 versus 54% in 2018, a decrease of 37%. Percentages of editors and consulting editors at American institutions also decreased significantly; however the effect for consulting editors was also quadratic—the linear decline accelerated over time. Predicted mean percentages of American consulting editors at 10-year intervals (1980–2020) were 94%, 92%, 89%, 80%, and 69%. Our 2020 predicted mean of 69% American consulting editors was notably lower than Thalmayer et al.’s (2020) 2018 mean of 82%. In addition, higher-impact journals had more pronounced quadratic declines in the percentages of American consulting editors over time. American psychology continues to become more international, but not quickly enough. We concur with Thalmayer et al.’s (2020) policy proposals, especially that APA journals and their editors should actively pursue non-American associate and consulting editors.

scholarly journals Beyond Representation of Women in I-O to Producing Gender-Inclusive Knowledge

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 448-455
Author(s):  
Margaret S. Stockdale ◽  
Alice H. Eagly
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Developmental Psychology ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Personality Psychology ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Gender Balance ◽  
The Status ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Status Of Women

Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) provided an excellent and much-needed analysis of the status of women in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Although others have produced overall assessments of the status of women in psychology (Eagly & Riger, 2014; Kite et al., 2001), these are not sufficient to identify conditions within the subfields of psychology. As shown by statistics on the divisions of the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/about/division/officers/services/profiles.aspx), the subfields differ greatly in their gender balance, with some being male dominated (e.g., experimental and cognitive science), others female dominated (e.g., developmental psychology), and still others representing women and men more equally (e.g., social and personality psychology). I-O psychology is among the more gender-balanced fields, with an increasing proportion of women over time. It would seem that I-O's gradual inclusion of more women should have changed aspects of research and discourse in this field. In this comment, we argue that these women have produced impressive changes.

scholarly journals Preprint - The prevalence of marginal significance in psychology over time

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anton Olsson-Collentine ◽  
Marcel A. L. M. van Assen ◽  
Chris Hubertus Joseph Hartgerink
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
General Trend ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
Regular Expressions ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
P Values ◽  
Evidential Value ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Individual Interpretation ◽  
Over Time

We examined the proportion of p-values (.05<𝑝≤.1) reported as marginally significant in 44,200 articles across 9 psychology disciplines, published in 70 journals belonging to the American Psychological Association (APA) between 1985 and 2016. Using regular expressions we extracted 42,504 p-values between .05 and .1. Almost 40% of p-values between .05 and .1 were reported as marginally significant, though there were considerable differences between disciplines. The practice is most common in organizational psychology (45.4%) and the least common in clinical psychology (30.1%). Contrary to what was reported by Pritschet, Powell, and Horne (2016), we found no evidence of an increasing trend in any discipline; in all disciplines the percentage of p-values reported as marginally significant was decreasing or constant over time. The 'Journal of Personality and Social Psychology' (JPSP), also examined by Pritschet et al., was an exception to the general trend and showed an increase over time. The degree to which reporting results as marginally significant is problematic depends largely on individual interpretation. Due to the low evidential value of p-values between .05 and .1 we recommend against reporting these results as marginally significant.

Moving toward the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: The Classroom Can Be a Lab, Too!

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randolph A. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
American Psychological Association ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
American Psychological ◽  
Scholarship Of Teaching ◽  
Scholarly Teaching ◽  
Division 2 ◽  
Over Time

Division 2 of the American Psychological Association was practicing the scholarship of teaching long before Boyer (1990) coined the term, but Boyer brought the idea to academe's consciousness. Over time, however, the scholarship of teaching and “scholarly teaching” have become confused. Based on Richlin's (2001) work, I attempt to resolve this confusion by equating the scholarship of teaching with scholarly work by faculty. In addition, I point out the parallels between assessment and the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) and provide tips for faculty who want to engage in SoTL research but see roadblocks in their way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document