Bibliometric data on psychology publications from 1977 through 2008 are modeled and forecasted for the 10 years following 2008. Data refer to the raw frequencies of the PsycINFO (94% English-language, mainly Anglo-American publications) and the English-language documents of PSYNDEX (publications from the German-speaking countries). The series were modelled by way of exponential smoothing. In contrast to Single Moving Average methods which do not weigh observations, exponential smoothing assigns differential weights to observations. Weights reflect the distance from the most recent data point. Results suggest strongly expanding publication activities which can be represented by exponential functions. In addition, forecasted publication activities, estimated based on psychology publication frequencies in the past, show positive bibliometric trends in the Anglo-American research community. These trends go in parallel the bibliometric trends for the English-language publications of German-speaking authors. However, while positive trends were forecasted for all psychological subdisciplines of the Anglo-American publication database PsycINFO, negative bibliometric trends were estimated for English-language publications from German-speaking authors in 6 out of 20 subdisciplines.

Questions about gender differences in the workplace usually attract much attention-but often generate more heat than light. To examine gender differences in several facets of scientific productivity and impact, a quantitative, scientometric approach is employed. Analyzing a sample of industrial and organizational psychologists (N authors = 4234; N publications = 46,656), this study raises both questions and concerns about gender differences in research, by showing that female and male I-O psychologists differ with regard to publication output (fewer publications authored by female researchers), impact (heterogeneous, indicator-dependent gender differences), their publication career courses (male researchers' periods of active publishing last longer and show longer interruptions), and research interests (only marginal gender differences). In order to get a glimpse of future developments, we repeated all analyses with the student subsample and found nearly no gender differences, suggesting a more gender-balanced future. Thus, this study gives an overview over the status quo of gender differences in an entire psychological sub-discipline. Future research will have to examine whether these gender differences are volitional in nature or the manifestation of external constraints.

Bibliometric results on the emergence and recent developmental trends of publications on positive psychology are presented within an outline of its precursors (i.e. humanistic psychology) and its special features in reference to humanistic psychology, health psychology, and developmental psychology. Terminological confusions (e.g. positivism in differential psychology vs. in epistemology; positive psychology) in psychological databases are described and resolved in bibliometric analyses for the time period between 2000 and 2008. The present results include findings reporting the incidence of multiple authorships, authors’ national institutional affiliations, the semantic network of publications on positive psychology, selected citation rates, and methodological classifications of the literature on positive psychology. With reference to PsycINFO, analyses show that publications on positive psychology increased markedly. Yet in comparison to other psychological subdisciplines and areas, literature output remains rather low. However, results on publication types and media point at a broad‐range impact of positive psychology on various applied and basic psychological subdisciplines. Together with the solid empirical foundation of positive psychology's literature, this leads to a positive prognosis for the further development of positive psychology.