 |
Editors: Charles M. Judd, PhD, John F. Dovidio, PhD, (outgoing), Jeffry A. Simpson, PhD, (incoming), Charles S. Carver, PhD
ISSN: 0022-3514
Published Monthly
|
Volume 86, Number 1, page 95
Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
I am writing to tell authors and readers what changes, if any, may be expected in the editorial policies of JPSP's section on Personality Processes and Individual Differences during the years ahead. The editorial group now at work takes up the reins after 6 years of exceptional stewardship by the previous editor—Ed Diener—and the capable associates he recruited to work with him. We are fortunate to follow that group, because they leave behind the clear perception among members of the field that JPSP: PPID is the place to turn first as a reader seeking new information about personality, and the place to turn first as an author seeking to publish such information.
The Diener group continued a trend that emerged in prior editorships toward requiring that articles provide relatively clear answers to the questions they posed. Usually that has meant that a given article contained several studies. Inclusion of multiple studies followed the demand for relatively clear answers, however, rather than being a policy in itself. The pressure toward clear answers will continue with the incoming editorial group. It will also remain likely that most articles—but not all—will include more than a single study. Yet it will continue to be true that including more studies does not in itself make acceptance more likely—indeed, editors will ask that a study be removed if it fails to contribute substantively to the article's point.
I do anticipate one change, which follows in large part from the ever-increasing demand on space. I expect that there will be pressure toward briefer introduction and discussion sections in the articles we publish. Jerry Suls (2001), reflecting on what he had learned during his term as editor of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, observed that we have somehow come to assume that our articles must be massive compendia to be worthwhile. He regarded this trend as problematic, and so do I. It is likely to become standard procedure for our editors to ask authors to trim the perhaps-interesting but unnecessary side issues from manuscripts that are otherwise suitable for publication. Other journals publish broad reviews, and empirical articles can refer to review articles without repeating all the details. It is my hope that if each author says a little less, we will find space in our pages for more authors.
Finally, I want it to be clear that this editorial team is very open to contributions from all areas of work bearing on personality. Contemporary personality psychology is an extraordinarily diverse field, with good work being done on many different fronts. I believe that all theoretical viewpoints deserve a place in this journal, as long as the science is sound and the authors make a compelling case that the findings bear on important issues in personality. I will make every effort to implement that policy throughout this editorial term.
—Charles S. Carver, Editor
Reference
Suls, J. (2001). Report from the editor of PSPB: Turning the corner! Dialogue, 16, 4, 28.
Charles S. Carver, Department of Psychology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 248185, Coral Gables, FL 33124-0751.
E-mail
|
