The rise and rise of social psychology in Asia: A bibliometric analysis

The growth of social psychology in Asia from 1970 to 2008 was examined through a bibliometric analysis of articles in the ISI Web of Science database that listed Asian‐based authors. The 1866 articles have appeared at an accelerating rate, and represent a rapidly‐growing share of global publications in the field. Publication trajectories of different Asian nations show the Indian first wave, Hong Kong and Japan's second wave, and China and Taiwan's third wave of growth. Trends in the rates of Asian first authorship, single‐nation authorship, and cross‐cultural research suggest that Asian social psychology is increasingly more autonomous and distinctive.     

Peer review and innovation

Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10–20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.     

Publication visibility of sensitive public health data: When scientists bury their results

What happens when the scientific tradition of openness clashes with potential societal risks? The work of American toxic-exposure epidemiologists can attract media coverage and lead the public to change health practices, initiate lawsuits, or take other steps a study’s authors might consider unwarranted. This paper, reporting data from 61 semi-structured interviews with U.S. toxic-exposure epidemiologists, examines whether such possibilities shaped epidemiologists’ selection of journals for potentially sensitive papers. Respondents manifested strong support for the norm of scientific openness, but a significant minority had or would/might, given the right circumstances, publish sensitive data in less visible journals, so as to prevent unwanted media or public attention. Often, even those advocating such limited “burial” upheld openness, claiming that less visible publication allowed them to avoid totally withholding the data from publication. However, 15% of the sample had or would, for the most sensitive types of data, withhold publication altogether. Rather than respondents explaining their actions in terms of an expected split between “pure science” and “social advocacy” models, even those publishing in the more visible journals often described their actions in terms of their “responsibility”. Several practical limitations (particularly involving broader access to scientific literature via the Internet) of the strategy of burial are discussed, and some recommendations are offered for scientists, the media, and the public.     

Trends in Anxiety Assessment

Trends in anxiety assessment were established by examining the methods reported in anxiety-related papers published in three prominent behavior therapy journals from 1970 to 2002. Assessment methods were categorized using Lang's three-system concept of anxiety (P. J. Lang, 1968) as an organizational framework. Analysis of the research methods suggests two primary patterns. First, multisystem assessment declined in the last several years by comparison with previous years whereas the assessment of a single response system (typically self-report) has increased. Second, among anxiety-related papers reporting multimodal assessment, physiological assessment returned to 1970s-era frequency in recent years after an upsurge in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Some possible interpretations and implications of these trends are discussed.     

A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science

This essay discusses some of the problems with current authorship practices and puts forward a proposal for a new system of credit allocation: in published works, scientists should more clearly define the responsibilities and contributions of members of research teams and should distinguish between different roles, such as author, statistican, technician, grant writer, data collector, and so forth. Dr. Resnik is an Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for the Advancement of Ethics, University of Wyoming. Information is available on website: http://www.uwyo.edu/bu/acct/cae.htm     

Ethics in Publication

Summary

This article highlights ethical issues in publication. It addresses the provenance of ideas, problems with joint authorship, plagiarism, and the practice of duplicate submission of material for publication. Confidentiality and privacy matters, and the protection of human subjects in publication of research and clinical case studies are also discussed. The article further examines biases in literature reviews, and in the biased selection of one's best results for publication, intentional misinterpretation of data and the slanting of discussion, summary, and conclusions. Finally, the article deals with ethical problems that can arise in the publication of sponsored research, and the ethical responsibilities of editors and readers.