in person, by conference call, and via many e-mail inter- actions over several months to generate a report that was approved by both the Board and the Council ...
American Psychologist Task Force Report Clarifying Mission, Coverage, Communication, and Review Process Philip G. Zimbardo Chair, Board of Directors’ American Psychologist Task Force
T
he Board of Directors of the American Psychological Association (APA) created a task force, at the suggestion of and following the recommendations of the APA Publications and Communications (P&C) Board, that was charged with reviewing the role and function of the American Psychologist (AP), its coverage domain, and issues related to its editorial review process. The action goal of this task force (APTF) was to recommend ways to increase the clarity of AP’s unique mission and its diverse breadth of coverage to members and authors, while also proposing formalized procedures to increase efficiency and fairness in the handling of submitted manuscripts. This detailed analysis of AP’s procedures and its operating principles was a constructive response to recent criticisms expressed by some members and also to concerns raised by the Council of Representatives. The APTF members1 met in person, by conference call, and via many e-mail interactions over several months to generate a report that was approved by both the Board and the Council and is summarized here for the general membership.
The Role and Unique Status of AP The AP is the official organ of the APA. As such, it publishes many Association documents, including but not limited to the minutes of the Council of Representatives, reports of APA officers, the Presidential Address, ethics reports, other Association reports, award addresses, obituaries, and official APA policy statements, as well as some invited scholarly and policy articles. In addition, about 20% of AP pages are used for author-submitted scholarly and peer reviewed material. Thus, AP uses a mixed model of editorial content. The task force supported continuing this model of editorial content and the unique mission of AP, but with appropriate descriptive information clearly presented in each issue of the journal.
AP Editorial Domain The first priority for space in AP is for the official documents of the Association. Second, it is an outlet for articles on the contribution of psychological knowledge to the solution of issues facing society, as well as for substantive contributions (written in a broad general style) that authors choose to submit to AP. The rejection rate on the latter category of submissions is well above 90%. Nonetheless, these author-submitted articles often have very high citation rates because of the wide circulation provided by AP March 2002 ● American Psychologist Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/02/$5.00 Vol. 57, No. 3, 213–214 DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.57.3.213
and the broadly accessible AP style of writing in them. The APTF supported the continuation of this editorial coverage but believed that the editorial domain and the different types of manuscripts needed to be better and more fully described in the AP editorial coverage statement—starting with this issue of AP.
AP Editorial Instructions Although a careful reading of the editorial policies of the various AP editors over the last 35 years reveals the editorial priorities and procedures of AP, this information is not readily available to (or remembered by) potential contributors to or readers of AP. Such information must be available to readers and contributors on a regular basis. The APTF recommended that the “Instructions to Authors” be modified and expanded in a manner that would make this information clear to all in each AP issue—starting with this issue.
AP Editorship The AP editor has historically been the APA chief executive officer (CEO), with exceptions when the CEO was on temporary leave or the position was in transition. After debating alternative editorial models, the APTF recommended the continuation of the model of having the CEO serve as the AP editor. An alternative model was considered by the APTF wherein there would be a divide between the Association domain and the scientific domain in AP, with the CEO handling the Association material and an independent editor handling all author-initiated submissions. However, this editorial structure was evaluated as creating a variety of additional manuscript-handling problems and might not be necessary if other procedural clarifications and new editorial policies were enacted. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Philip G. Zimbardo, 2002 APA President, American Psychological Association, Executive Office, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002. 1 Philip G. Zimbardo, 2001 APA President-Elect (Chair); Robert A. Bjork, Past Chair, Council of Editors; Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Chair, Board of Scientific Affairs; Janet Shibley Hyde, Chair, Journals Advisory Committee; Sara Kiesler, Chair, P&C Board; Philip Kendall, Chair, Council of Editors; Ron Levant, APA Board of Directors; and Bruce Overmier, APA Board of Directors.
213
Communications Within the AP Editorial Process There are various letters written from the editor to associate/action editors and from action editors to authors during the editorial operation of AP. These letters have sometimes been vague regarding expected procedures and editorial authority. This is a particular problem for AP because more than 50% of all manuscripts submitted currently to AP that are actually reviewed have those reviews handled by an ad hoc action editor rather than a more regularly involved associate editor. It appeared to the task force that action editors (whether regular associate editors or ad hoc action editors) did not currently receive clear information about (a) whether or not they have final editorial authority and (b) how to keep the AP editorial office informed of what is happening during the external processing of a manuscript. There is no centralized tracking and depository of information on the external reviews. In general, the APTF recommended formalizing many of the currently informal steps and procedures in the AP editorial process, as well as greater centralized processing of communication with authors (much of which could be achieved through the use of the electronic “Journals Back Office” [JBO] manuscript and correspondence tracking system).
it is critical that steps be taken to provide them with the necessary background information required for optimally effective and standardized reviewing.
Reducing Lag Time for Completing AP Reviews The lag time from submission to initial editorial decision making for the typical manuscript that actually undergoes editorial peer review averages eight to nine months for AP. This stands in striking contrast to the lag time of the regular empirical journals published by the APA, which ranges from two to three months (with a maximum allowable limit of four months). The APTF believed that AP manuscript reviews should not exceed four months, and the APTF encouraged the AP editor and the AP managing editor to implement procedures to achieve this shorter targeted length of editorial review. To achieve this, the task force recommended consideration of two possibilities: (a) using a presubmission form for previewing possible submissions (and thereby cutting down the number of submitted manuscripts returned without review) and (b) using the centralized electronic JBO manuscript and communication processing system (to better track the status of manuscripts, when centralized follow-up is needed, and so forth).
Use of Ad Hoc Action Editors
Conclusion
Despite the fact that ad hoc action editors have been reviewing half of all submitted manuscripts that have been reviewed by AP, they have been poorly informed and rarely “socialized” about appropriate AP norms. They receive no information about standard AP (or APA) editorial policies and procedures, no instructions about how to handle reviews, no information about how to keep the centralized AP editorial office informed of the steps in the review and revision process, and no formal training in the AP (or APA) approach to editorial coverage and content of AP (or other APA journals). The APTF recommended that the use of ad hoc action editors by AP should be greatly cut back, if not eliminated. Furthermore, if ad hoc action editors are used,
AP is not broken, but it is in need of improvements in its editorial operations and communication across an array of matters with readers, potential and submitting authors, and action editors. As has been noted by the P&C Board, AP is a fine publication, addressing a complex array of needs and interests (and with a high citation rate). As such, its basic editorial coverage and approach should be continued. However, refinement of clarity of communication of coverage should be given to the APA membership, transparency of authority and process must be given to action editors (and contributing authors), and better formalized procedures for more efficient manuscript processing need to be immediately instituted.
214
March 2002 ● American Psychologist
