Book contents
Part III - The Journal Submission and Resubmission Process
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2018
Edited by
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Guide to Publishing in Psychology Journals , pp. 129 - 216Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS: A model for leadership in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–67.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1982). The mind of the puzzler. Psychology Today, 16(June), 37–44.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1983). Insight in the gifted. Educational Psychologist, 18, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
References
Gawande, A. (2016). The mistrust of science. The New Yorker, News Desk, June 10, 2016.Google Scholar
Hutchings, E. (Ed.) (1985). Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a curious character. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. eJIFCC [Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine], 25, 227–243 (published online October 24, 2014).Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, S.O., & Ammirati, D.M. (2012). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 7–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roediger, H. L. (1987). The role of journal editors in the scientific process. InJackson, D. N. & Rushton, J. P. (Eds.), Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment (pp. 222–252). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Sagan, C. (1996). The demon haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Random House.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.Google Scholar
Stemwedel, J. D. (2011). Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science. Scientific American, Doing Good Science Blog, October 4, 2011.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Costs and benefits of defying the crowd in science. Intelligence, 26, 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2003). Psychologists defying the crowd: Stories of those who battled the establishment and won. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
References
Dennis, W. (1954). Productivity among American psychologists. American Psychologist, 9, 191–194.Google Scholar
Dennis, W. (1955). Variations in productivity among creative workers. Scientific Monthly, 80, 277–278.Google Scholar
Dennis, W. (1966). Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. Journal of Gerontology, 21, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age: The careers of 10 distinguished psychologists. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21, 241–254.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Quality and purpose, quantity and chance. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 68–74.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1996). Creative expertise: A lifetime developmental perspective. In Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 227–253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Spencer, M., Muse, A., Wagner, R. K., Foorman, B., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Tighe, E. L., & Bishop, D. (2015). Examining the underlying dimensions of morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge. Reading and Writing, 28, 959–988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, M., Quinn, J. M., & Wagner, R. K. (2014). Specific reading comprehension disability: Major problem, myth, or misnomer? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, M., & Wagner, R. K. (2016). The comprehension problems for second-language learners with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12080Google ScholarPubMed
Spencer, M., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). The comprehension problems of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(3), 366–400.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Forsythe, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J., Snook, S., Williams, W. M., Wagner, R. K., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2016). The psychologist's companion: A guide to scientific writing for students and researchers (6th edn.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (Eds.) (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. K. (1987). Tacit knowledge in everyday intelligent behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1236–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Practical intelligence in real-world pursuits: The role of tacit knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 436–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Tacit knowledge in managerial success. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1(4), 301–312.Google Scholar
References
Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to know better? In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 157–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepard, R. N. (1962a). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. Psychometrika, 27(2), 125–240.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1962b). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II. Psychometrika, 27(3), 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing, and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1985). Human abilities: An information-processing approach. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1997a). The triarchic theory of intelligence. In Flanagan, D. P., Genshaft, J. L., & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 92–104). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1997c). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS: A model for leadership in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Bower, G. H. (1974). Transfer in part-whole and whole-part free recall: A comparative evaluation of theories. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 1–26.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1982). The mind of the puzzler. Psychology Today, 16(June), 37–44.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J.Sternberg, J. E. (1983). Insight in the gifted. Educational Psychologist, 18, 51–57.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., and Gordeeva, T. (1996). The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential? Psychological Science, 7(2), 69–75.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). A capsule history of theory and research on styles. In Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L. F. (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive styles (pp. 1–21). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982) Judgments of and by representativeness. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.Google Scholar
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34, 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 24.| https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Peters, D. (1982). Peer review: A study of reliability. Change, 14(6), 44–49.Google Scholar
Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Curry, S. (2012). Sick of impact factors. Retrieved October 12, 2017 http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2012/08/13/sick-of-impact-factors/Google Scholar
Gibson, E. J., & Walk, R. D. (1960). The “visual cliff.” Scientific American, 202, 67–71.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the h index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104, 19, 193–19, 198 [PMC free article] [PubMed]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Peters, D., & Ceci, S. J. (1980). A manuscript masquerade: How well does the journal review process work? The Sciences, 20(September), 16.Google Scholar
Peters, D., and Ceci, S. J. (1982). A naturalistic study of psychology journals: The fate of published articles resubmitted. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 219–228.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L. (2013). Journal impact factors. APS Observer, September. www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/journal-impact-factors#.WlG4B5TRsP0.emailGoogle Scholar
Sandstrom, U., & van den Besselaar, P. (2016). Quantity and/or quality? The importance of publishing many papers. PLoS One, 11(11). e0166149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166149Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model. Psychological Review, 104(1), 66–89.Google Scholar
Sønderstrup-Andersen, E. M., & Sønderstrup-Andersen, H. H. K. (2008). An investigation into diabetes researcher's perc-eptions of the Journal Impact Factor – reconsidering evaluating research. Scientometrics, 76, 391–406. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1924-4Google Scholar
Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2005). Beware the undiscovered genius. Nature, 435, 534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Brand, A., Allen, L., Altman, M., Hlava, M., & Scott, J. (2015). Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learned Publishing, 28(2), 151–155. doi:10.1087/20150211Google Scholar
Center for Open Science (n.d.). Registered Reports: Peer review before results are known to align scientific values and practices [webpage]. Retrieved from http://cos.io/rr/Google Scholar
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000. 15 USC §§96Google Scholar
Girard, S. (2017). CHOR continues international expansion with Australian partnership [website]. Retrieved March 2, 2017 from www.chorusaccess.org/chor-continues-international-expansion-australian-partnershipGoogle Scholar
Hartley, J., & Cabanac, G. (2017). The delights, discomforts, and downright furies of the manuscript submission process. Learned Publishing, 30(2), 167–172. doi:10.1002/leap.1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MECA (2017). Manuscript Exchange Common Approach [webpage]. Retrieved July 27, 2017 from www.manuscriptexchange.org.Google Scholar
Morey, R. D., Chambers, C. D., Etchells, P. J., Harris, C. R., Hoekstra, R., Lakens, D., … Zwaan, R. A. (2016). The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: Incentivizing open research practices through peer review. Royal Society Open Science. doi:10.1098/rsos.150547Google Scholar
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review [version 1; referees: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2017, 6, 588. doi:10.12688/f1000research.11369.1Google Scholar
Woolston, C. (2018). Resubmitting your study to a new journal could become easier. Nature Jobs, June 11. http://blogs.nature.com/naturejobs/2018/06/11/resubmitting-your-study-to-a-new-journal-could-become-easier.Google Scholar
World Medical Association (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects [webpage]. Retrieved October 19, 2013 from www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjectsGoogle Scholar