Katsunori Yamada, PhD

Yamada works primarily in the field of behavioral economics and is actively pursuing interdisciplinary research with medicine, statistics, and marketing.

Tell us a bit about your background: What is your area of research? What is your most recent journal-editing experience?

After earning PhD in macroeconomics, I now work primarily in the field of behavioral economics. My research interests have expanded beyond economics to neuroscience and psychology, and I am actively pursuing interdisciplinary research with medicine, statistics, and marketing.

Briefly, what are your main priorities? For example, how will you grow readership, what type of scholarship would you like to see in the journal, and what kind of content are you hoping to attract?

The first way our interdisciplinary journal can enhance its significance and presence would be to systematically address two main issues common to neuroscience, psychology, and economics: the replicability of research results and the tendency for submitted manuscripts that report statistically significant results to be published while submitted manuscripts that do not report statistically significant results are rejected. These problems have been addressed by some journals in part by their requiring the preregistration of experimental plans and the publication of raw data. However, to date, these requirements have been applied to individual research projects on a case-by-case basis and have not actively addressed the problem as a whole.

Suppose a very well-known study is reported in a prestigious neuroscience journal. Various researchers may independently follow up or add new contributions with small variations. When a follow-up is not successful, the world’s scientists agonize over the results and waste tremendous resources in their search for the reason for the failure. Until now, such efforts have been undertaken individually. In fact, individual efforts can eventually lead to a great swell of systematic critical examination of the original research. However, this may not be an efficient approach. What if JNPE systematically publicized a follow-up plan for a particular study and invited contributors from around the world to participate? Such an approach may not be workable in other scientific fields, but in the human sciences—neuroscience, psychology, and economics—it is often possible to address issues with rather wide eyes from around the world.

In fact, during my tenure as assistant editor of JNPE, I suggested planning a global follow-up on a certain high-profile study in economics. This was not because the original study was dubious but because I was convinced that the issue was worth testing around the world. I have never heard of such an initiative in any journal, and if it can be done under the authority of APA, it will create a unique value for JNPE as an interdisciplinary journal. Journal-driven examinations of the replicability of science: This is the value I see in the JNPE platform.

Just as important as the systematic consideration of the replicability or external validity of a valuable article is the publication of studies that do not produce statistically significant results, as long as their methodology is sound. Questionable research practices such as harking, conducting data analysis that is not preregistered, and padding sample sizes are rampant because of publication bias. To maintain the integrity of research findings in neuroscience, psychology, and economics, we must have a culture in which we can say “nice, no results,” without being sarcastic. American Psychologist seems to have such a policy, but it is also important to build a platform where researchers in neuroscience and economics, as well as psychology, can report negative results that are of value to them.

Why is this journal important for the field? What is its relevance to society/public health? What are the hot issues in your area right now?

As an incoming editor for JNPE, my main interest, under the era of replicability crisis, is the reproducibility of experimental results and the soundness of research protocols. I also plan to actively publish special issues that comprehensively examine the reproducibility of prominent studies, as well as research findings that are not statistically significant but where the research question is important and the research procedures are legitimate.

What challenges, if any, lie ahead for the field?

The Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics (JNPE) is a relatively new publication that has not yet established itself as a journal of APA, as indicated by its current impact factor of 1.28. Given its newness and impact factor, JNPE is not yet the first choice considered for manuscript submission by researchers (like me) working in interdisciplinary fields. Researchers first submit their work to the top journals in their most relevant fields, and if that does not work out, they then consider trying JNPE. To overcome this situation, JNPE needs to take advantage of APA’s unique strengths—its history, credibility, and centripetal force in the psychology community—and provide services that leverage the dignity and prestige of the association.

Do you have plans for a special issue or changes to the editorial process? Have you introduced or are you planning to introduce any changes?

JNPE can enhance its value as an interdisciplinary journal by establishing a unique position as a reporting platform for researchers in neuroscience, economics, and psychology.

Of course, the emphases and strategies I have proposed should be implemented as additions to JNPE’s existing role as a journal in which to publish original research results. Important as JNPE’s existing role is, it seems clear that it is no longer sufficient. I hope that my vision will be used for the further development of JNPE.