Book contents
- The Portable Mentor
- The Portable Mentor
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Applying to Graduate School
- Part II Beginning your Career
- Part III Your Research/Academic Career
- 11 An Open Science Workflow for More Credible, Rigorous Research
- 12 Presenting Your Research
- 13 Publishing Your Research
- 14 Recommendations for Teaching Psychology
- 15 Applying for NIH Grants
- 16 On Being a Woman in Academic Psychology
- Part IV Your Career as a Practitioner
- Part V Your Professional Service Career
- Part VI Your Career After Graduate School
- Index
- References
13 - Publishing Your Research
from Part III - Your Research/Academic Career
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Portable Mentor
- The Portable Mentor
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Applying to Graduate School
- Part II Beginning your Career
- Part III Your Research/Academic Career
- 11 An Open Science Workflow for More Credible, Rigorous Research
- 12 Presenting Your Research
- 13 Publishing Your Research
- 14 Recommendations for Teaching Psychology
- 15 Applying for NIH Grants
- 16 On Being a Woman in Academic Psychology
- Part IV Your Career as a Practitioner
- Part V Your Professional Service Career
- Part VI Your Career After Graduate School
- Index
- References
Summary
We focus on preparing a manuscript for publication, emphasizing description, explanation, and contextualization.Description is the most straightforward, providing study details.Explanation is more demanding, as it refers to presenting the rationale of several facets of the study.Contextualization moves a step furtherfrom description and addresses how the study fits in the context of other studies and the knowledge base more generally.Authors are often frustrated that their study and manuscript was not understood or appreciated.No doubt this is often true, but the responsibility lies with us as authors.There is much an author can do to make a compelling case for the study.One summary question to guide an author in preparing a manuscript might be, “Why is this study important, needed, or especially interesting?”The answer serves as the basis of the Introduction and Discussion.We discuss each section of a manuscript, what to include and explain, and how the gestalt can present a storyline that connects the sections.The chapter also discusses guidelines for conducting, evaluating, and reporting research and the journal submission and manuscript review process.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Portable MentorExpert Guide to a Successful Career in Psychology, pp. 235 - 265Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleyard, T., Brookhart, S., Carpenter, T., Clarke, M., Curry, S., Dahl, J., DeHaven, A., Eich, E., Franko, M., Freedman, L., Graf, C., Grant, S., Hanson, B., Joseph, H., Kiermer, V., Kramer, B., Kraut, A., Karn, R. K., … Vazire, S. (2018, February 15). Making science transparent by default; Introducing the TOP Statement. https://osf.io/sm78t/?_ga=2.66881262.1762683141.1579096697-214340795.1579096697Google Scholar
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35, 33–40.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2020a). APA and affiliated journals. Online at www.apa.org/pubs/journalsGoogle Scholar
American Psychological Association. (2020b). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
Association for Psychological Science. (2020). APS journals. On line at www.psychologicalscience.org/publicationsGoogle Scholar
Bailar, J. C. III., & Patterson, K. (1985). Journal of peer review: The need for a research agenda. New England Journal of Medicine, 312, 654–657.Google Scholar
Benos, D. J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J. M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., Mans, R., Mayhew, D., McGowan, S., Polter, A., Qadri, Y., Sarfare, S., Schultz, K., Splittgerber, R., Stephenson, J., Tower, C., Walton, A. G., & Zotov, A. (2007). The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(2), 145–152.Google Scholar
Brainard, J. (2020). Articles in ‘predatory’ journals receive few or no citations. Science, 367(6474), 139.Google Scholar
Case, L., & Smith, T. B. (2000). Ethnic representation in a sample of the literature of applied psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1107–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of the peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119–186.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (2020). Reporting quantitative research in psychology: How to meet APA style journal article reporting standards (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Los Reyes, A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2008). When the evidence says, “yes, no, and maybe so”: Attending to and interpreting inconsistent findings among evidence-based interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 47–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeHaven, A. (2017, May 23). Preregistration: A plan, not a prison. Retrieved from https://cos.io/blog/preregistration-plan-not-prison/Google Scholar
Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group. (2004). Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 361–366.Google Scholar
Elson, M., Huff, M., & Utz, S. (2020). Meta science on peer review: testing the effects of study originality and statistical significance in a field experiment. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
Francis, G. (2012). The psychology of replication and replication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 585–594.Google Scholar
Gerber, A., Arceneaux, K., Boudreau, C., Dowling, C., Hillygus, S., Palfrey, T., Biggers, D. R., & Hendry, D. J. (2014). Reporting guidelines for experimental research: A report from the experimental research section standards committee. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunther, A. (2011). PSYCLINE: Your guide to psychology and social science journals on the web. Retrieved August 2011 from www.psycline.org/journals/psycline.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, E. (2019, October 21). Journals test the Materials Design Analysis Reporting (MDAR) checklist of shemes and memes community. Blog from Nature.com. http://blogs.nature.com/ofschemesandmemes/author/lizhGoogle Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (2017). Research design in clinical psychology (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the Meta-Analytic Reporting Standards). Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 123–143.Google Scholar
Kirman, C. R., Simon, T. W., & Hays, S. M. (2019). Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 103, 73–85.Google Scholar
Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. The New Yorker. Available at www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrerGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Noort, and Committees, Drenth (2012, November). Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel. Available at www.commissielevelt.nl/wp-content/uploads_per_blog/commissielevelt/2012/11/120695_Rapp_nov_2012_UK_web.pdfGoogle Scholar
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist, 73, 26–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, C., Liu, Y., Neumann, S., & Gao, X. (2017). Nicotine from cigarette smoking and diet and Parkinson disease: A review. Translational Neurodegeneration, 6(1), 18. https://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s40035-017-0090-8Google Scholar
Metcalf, J., & Crawford, K. (2016). Where are human subjects in big data research? The emerging ethics divide. Big Data & Society, 3(1), 2053951716650211.Google Scholar
Miller, L. R., & Das, S. K. (2007). Cigarette smoking and Parkinson’s disease. Experimental and Clinical Sciences International, 6, 93–99.Google Scholar
Moher, D., Schulz, K.F., & Altman, D. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of American Medical Association, 285, 1987–1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moonesinghe, R., Khoury, M. J., & Janssens, A. C. J. W (2007). Most published research findings are false – But a little replication goes a long way. PLoS Medicine, 4(2), e28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 2600–2606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryczak, F. (2017). Writing empirical research reports: A basic guide for students of the social and behavioral sciences (8th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 178–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20, 357–358.Google Scholar
Stahel, P. F., & Moore, E. E. (2014). Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., McDonald, S., Togher, L., Shadish, W., Horner, R., Kratochwill, T., Barlow, D. H., Kazdin, A., Sampson, M., Shamseer, L., & Sampson, M. (2016). The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: Explanation and elaboration. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4(1), 10–31.Google Scholar
Thomson Reuters. (2011). Journal search: Psychology. New York: Thomson Reuters. Retrieved August 2011 from http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Word=psychologyGoogle Scholar
Thursby, G. (2011). Psychology virtual library: Journals (electronic and print). Retrieved August 2011 from www.vl-site.org/psychology/journals.htmlGoogle Scholar
Von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(8), 573–577.Google Scholar
Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A. P., Thomson, M. A., Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S. E., & Walker-Smith, J. A. (1998). RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351(9103), 637–641.Google Scholar
Watanabe, M., & Aoki, M. (2014, January 10). Researcher: Test data falsified in major Alzheimer’s disease project. The Ashai Shimbun. Available online at https://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201401100085Google Scholar
Web of Science. (2011). 2010 Journal citation reports. New York: Thomson Reuters. Retrieved August 2011 from http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/Google Scholar
Yang, Y. T., Broniatowski, D. A., & Reiss, D. R. (2019). Government role in regulating vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. JAMA Pediatrics. Published online September 03, 2019.Google Scholar
Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: On the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313–325.Google Scholar