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.     

医学期刊载文的伦理学审查情况分析——以《中国学校卫生》为例

通过查阅《中国学校卫生》近5年纸质期刊,查看文章“对象与方法”中有无“知情同意”或“获得伦理学审查”等信息。结果显示,获得伦理学审查或知情同意的文章884篇,各年份获得伦理学审查、知情同意及总体检出率差异均有统计学意义(χ²=366.29,43.58,219.83,P<0.01)。各年份获得伦理学审查、知情同意的心理学研究及总体检出率(χ²=107.55,16.80,58.66);获得伦理学审查的干预性研究及总体检出率(χ²=44.40,18.46);获得伦理学审查的涉及生物样本的研究检出率(χ²=17.47),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。今后应不断加强引导和教育,加强科研人员及编辑的伦理意识。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

《维果茨基全集》中文本解读

《维果茨基全集》中文本于2016年11月在我国出版面世,这是继20世纪80年代苏联《维果茨基文集》俄文版之后世界上最全的版本,它的出版是中国心理学界,乃至整个学术界、理论界值得庆贺的一件大事。本文拟从出版缘起、主要内容和学术价值三方面对《维果茨基全集》中文本进行解读,希望有助于国内学者和公众能比较全面和准确地了解维果茨基的学术思想,把握维果茨基理论和方法的精要,激发学界同仁对维果茨基思想的研究热情。     

Publication rates of Australian academic psychologists

This study focused on publication rates of Australian academic psychologists. A random selection of 12 of the 36 Australian universities with psychology programs produced a total of 272 academics with the academic ranks of lecturer, senior lecturer, associate professor, or professor. A search of the PsycINFO database provided lists of publications for each academic. Using all listed publications except corrections and dissertations, the search found approximately a doubling pattern for number of publications going up each step of the rank ladder. Academics from universities that are members of the research‐intensive Group of Eight universities had significantly higher publication averages at every rank than academics at other universities. Male academics had higher publication rates than female academics, but gender differences accounted for only a small amount of variance in the number of publications. The publication rates have potential value in allowing academic psychologists to compare their publication rate with that of their peers, in helping universities make hiring and promotion decisions, and in helping organisations that provide research grants evaluate the publications records of grant applicants.