I have published in Psychological Record, not psychological reports, what I would consider to be more of an educational psychology piece, rather than a behaviorist piece (by any stretch of the imagination!).
I DID have to pay a hefty fee to Psych Record for "page fees" and "reprints". It was several years ago now but it was so much that I had to request an internal university faculty research grant just to pay for it, it was well beyond my personal budget. In my experience, the review process for both Psych Record and Psych Reports is about equal. Although the articles in Psych Reports are more eclectic and usually of a briefer version, so a great place for the almighty god of science: the god of replication as a sign of good science, for some reason it has a terrible reputation that I believe was deserved some 20 years ago, but not NOW. It's a shame that people can't keep up with changes and see what is happening that has been good. And, I did not know about the page costs for Psych Record until publication time and was greatly surprised. Sigh. I have also published in the College Student Journal and that is also a vanity journal with minimal review. I believe just the editor and one other person. I could be wrong. They also had a hefty page charge, and the first time I published there I just don't remember if I knew ahead of time or not; I know it now :) I just don't get why "page charges automaticlaly equals low quality journal content" attitude comes from. So back to the original query: how do professionals find a listing of good second tier journals? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [email protected] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:14:23 -0400 >From: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [tips] How can you tell a journal is "vanity"? >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > >Annette wrote: > >> we want to stay away from "vanity" journals because no matter how >> wonderful and rigid the review process, as for Psych Record, >apparently it is a kiss of death. > >A minor point but the pedant in me requires that I note it. I would >think that the journal Annette means to warn against is >Psychological _Reports_. Record, reports, what's the difference, >but I think in this case there is one. I believe _Record_ tends to >publish articles which favour a behaviourist orientation, and >probably does not have page charges (couldn't find any mention >on their web page, which, as I think Annette pointed out, isn't a >guarantee). I also think its reputation is secure. > >But _Reports_, which, as its name indicates, publishes a large >number of short reports of an, um, eclectic nature, does have >page charges. Some, perhaps unfairly, have questioned the >rigour of its review process. > >Stephen >----------------------------------------------------------------- >Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. >Professor of Psychology, Emeritus >Bishop's University > e-mail: [email protected] >2600 College St. >Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 >Canada >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >--- >To make changes to your subscription contact: > >Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
