As a person who has reviewed for and written in Perceptual and Motor Skills (a sister publication of PR), I want to second Stuart's comments.
Too many people use the name of the journal as a proxy to classify the quality of a piece of work. This is intellectual sloth. We have all read poor quality work by famous names in high-prestige journals, interesting well-done work by obscure people in so-called lesser journals, and a wide range of the inbetween. There are many factors governing whether a manuscript will end up being published in a particular journal. A major factor is whether the contents of the manuscript are consistent with the mission of the journal as interpreted by the current editor. If you are working on a topic that the editor considers irrelevant and unimportant for the readers of the journal then you are not likely to have your manuscript published in that journal. Perceptual and Motor Skills is an excellent outlet for work that falls outside the current zeitgeist. Ken On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:09:00 -0500 Stuart Mckelvie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Tipsters, > > As a person who has both reviewed for and written in Psychological > Reports/Perceptual and Motor Skills, here are my thoughts: > > The submissions are peer-reviewed by 2 or 3 people and the author > receives all the comments verbatim, together with what the editor thinks > are the most important ones. As Dan Burns suggests, most articles get > published if the author so wishes. > > At one time, I wrote to the editor (Carol Ammons) and expressed > concern about the uneven quality of the published papers. She > explained the journals' policy to me as follows (this is from memory). > They want to permit publication of papers that may be non-traditional in > both topics and methods. They want authors to have the opinion of their > peers. But, in the end, the like to the author quite a bit responsibility > about the whether to publish or not. If the author truly believes that the > work is work publishing, they will try to allow that to happen. > > As a result, in my opinion, there have been some first-class articles in > these journals, papers that would be acceptable in the "top" outlets. > Indeed, some of the best-known researchers in psychology have > published in there. There have also been some papers that would > certainly have been refused elsewhere and have no apparent redeeming > merit. And there have been some that would not be acceptable > elsewhere but have an interesting point to make. They may be unusual > or innovative but might also involve replication work, which has often > received short shrift from other journals. It is quite possible that I have > contributed in all three categories..... > > So I do not agree that a paper should be dismissed because it is in one > of these joumals. But there is also no quality guarantee. You have to > read the paper youself and judge. For teaching purposes, I have found > some great papers - they are often reasonably short, clearly-written and > perfect for class discussion. > > By the way, turnaround is usually quite fast (2 or 3 months for the whole > process), and you pay per page and automatically receive reprints. > > For an interesting point of view on judging a paper by its outlet, see this > piece by Robert J. Sternberg: > > http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/1001/published.html. > > > As a final note, the editors at PR/PMS are always very polite. One of > their policies (that some other journals now follow) has always been to > share the comments on other readers with each reviewer, and to > express written thanks to readers at the end of each journal year. > Names are also listed in the journals. They also invite people to respond > if they find something controvresial in a paper. > > Sincerely, > > Stuart > > http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/1001/published.htmlDate sent: > Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:42:15 -0400 > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Dan Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Rosenthal/Psych.Reports > Send reply to: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Hi Tasha, > > > > Psych Reports is "peer-reviewed" (usually by 2-3 reviewers) but a > > manuscript will generally be published regardless of whether the author(s) > > make suggested changes. I agree that it is a good general rule to warn > > students about Psych Reports, but on the other hand some good articles > > (that later get cited frequently) are published there. I've never > > published there, but I have reviewed for them. > > > > Bye, Dan Burns > > > > At 09:24 AM 10/26/01 -0400, you wrote: > > >I can't address your question, but as an undergrad, my professors warned me to > > >never use any articles from psychological reports as it wasn't peer > > >reviewed and > > >was of very poor quality. i haven't forgotten this and tell my students > > >the same > > >thing. i would like to know if tipsters think this or if I've been wrong all > > >these years? > > > > > >Ann Calhoun-Sauls wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I've assigned the excert from Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) Teachers' > > > > expectancies:Determinants of pupils' I.Q. gains. Psychological Reports, 19, > > > > 115-118. that's reproduced in Pettijohn's Sources Notable Selections in > > > > Psychology book. One of my better students e-mailed me a question about a > > > > line he found particularly difficult to understand. While I think I know > > > > what was meant from the context, I also found the sentence extremely > > > > difficult and thought that it may have been misprinted. I''ve e-mailed the > > > > student back with my interpretation of the section, but wanted to see > > > if any > > > > of you had any other input or perhaps even access to the original source. > > > > > > > > The sentence in question reads "Prior research on the unintentional > > > > communication of expectancies in experimentally more carefully controlled > > > > interactions suggests that this question will not be easily unanswered > > > > (Rosenthal, in press)" The preceeding sentence was "The most important > > > > question which remains is that which asks how a teacher's expectation > > > > becomes translated into behavior in such a way as to elicit the expected > > > > pupil behavior." These occur on page 171 in the Pettijohn book as the next > > > > to the last paragraph of the selection. > > > > > > > > What I told my student is: > > > > > > > > The part of the sentence that reads "Prior research . . . interactions" and > > > > the citation of "Rosenthal (in press)" means that Rosenthal had performed > > > > another study in which he had observed how the teachers' interacted > > > with the > > > > students after being given expectations about their ability. The second > > > part > > > > of the sentence appears to simply mean that from that study Rosenthal had > > > > not found any clear differences in how the teachers treated the > > > students and > > > > assumed that it would be hard to figure it out. I agree that the phrasing > > > > is strange; it sounds like it should read "easily answered" not "easily > > > > unanswered." It could simply be that the word was copied incorrectly when > > > > the article was edited for your Sources book. Or it could be that this was > > > > a phrase that was once commonly used and went out of style before my time. > > > > I like the latter interpretation because it makes me feel really young for > > > > the first time in a while. Thank you. > > > > > > > > Any comments? > > > > > > > > Ann Calhoun-Sauls > > > > Belmont Abbey College > > > > Belmont, NC 28102 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >-- > > >*********** > > >Tasha R. Howe, Ph.D > > >Assistant Professor of Psychology (Developmental) > > >Transylvania University > > >300 N. Broadway > > >Lexington, KY 40508 > > >Phone: (859) 233-8144 > > >FAX: (859) 281-3507 > > >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Website: http://www.transy.edu/homepages/thowe/ftpdpages/index2.html > > >Another website I created: http://www.scbwi-midsouth.com/ > > > > ___________________________________________________ > Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: (819)822-9600 > Department of Psychology, Extension 2402 > Bishop's University, Fax: (819)822-9661 > 3 Route 108 East, > Lennoxville, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Quebec J1M 1Z7, > Canada. > > Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: > http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy > ___________________________________________________ > ---------------------- Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dept. of Psychology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 USA --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
