Reflective functioning or mentalizing is the capacity to interpret both the self and others in terms of internal mental states such as feelings, wishes, goals, desires, and attitudes. This paper is part of a series of papers outlining the development and psychometric features of a new self-report measure, the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ), designed to provide an easy to administer self-report measure of mentalizing. We describe the development and initial validation of the RFQ in three studies. Study 1 focuses on the development of the RFQ, its factor structure and construct validity in a sample of patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Eating Disorder (ED) (n = 108) and normal controls (n = 295). Study 2 aims to replicate these findings in a fresh sample of 129 patients with personality disorder and 281 normal controls. Study 3 addresses the relationship between the RFQ, parental reflective functioning and infant attachment status as assessed with the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) in a sample of 136 community mothers and their infants. In both Study 1 and 2, confirmatory factor analyses yielded two factors assessing Certainty (RFQ_C) and Uncertainty (RFQ_U) about the mental states of self and others. These two factors were relatively distinct, invariant across clinical and non-clinical samples, had satisfactory internal consistency and test–retest stability, and were largely unrelated to demographic features. The scales discriminated between patients and controls, and were significantly and in theoretically predicted ways correlated with measures of empathy, mindfulness and perspective-taking, and with both self-reported and clinician-reported measures of borderline personality features and other indices of maladaptive personality functioning. Furthermore, the RFQ scales were associated with levels of parental reflective functioning, which in turn predicted infant attachment status in the SSP. Overall, this study lends preliminary support for the RFQ as a screening measure of reflective functioning. Further research is needed, however, to investigate in more detail the psychometric qualities of the RFQ.

Scientific publications began as the exchange of polite letters among Gentlemen of Leisure interested in natural philosophy, during the period of the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. The 19th century saw the proliferation of national academies of sciences and societies for the advancement of science to the wider public. The formation of scientific disciplines was to follow, each with its own reviews for reporting new theories, observations and experiments to peers, and for critiquing the work of others in public debate. In the 21st century, this enterprise of scientific publication has grown to gigantic proportions -narrowly defined as "producing peer-review journal articles." Databases of scientific publications (Scopus, ISI, Eigen-factor) track something in the area of 12,000 scientific journals (for example Web of Science, 2009: 11,261 journals, of which about 1/5 are social science), and something in the area of 700,000 published papers per year (2009). Such estimates differ widely and depend on the database. Björk et al. (2009) put this figure at 1.35 million for 2006, and Scopus (at www.SCimago.com) puts this figure at over 30 million citable documents for 2010. However we count, the bulk of this production is still located in the USA and in Europe, but Asia and Latin America are catching up fast. And all this remains a conservative measure of the real scientific effort. Most tracking exercises have a bias towards English language, the lingua franca of modern science, leaving many linguistically conscious researchers with a tough dilemma between pride in the mother tongue or an international impact. Moreover, even within the English language context, databases are incomplete, and some journals exist "off map."With a total of 465 papers peer-reviewed and published between January 1992 and December 2010, Public Understanding of Science is clearly a small fish in this large publishing ocean, and also a small fish within its own world, the social sciences. All the same, PUS strives vigorously to support the work of researchers studying the modern scientific mentality in a global perspective. PUS works for its authors: the impact story so farCitations impact has become the currency by which to identify and trade information about academic journals, and academic researchers increasingly depend on it for their careers. But impact ratings come in many different forms and format. It is necessary to establish some perspective on the matter.

To reflect further on 20 years of the journal, we present a lexicographic and bibliometric study of all papers published in Public Understanding of Science (PUS). Lexicographical analysis of the vocabulary of 465 abstracts shows five classes of associated concepts in two periods, 1992-2001 and 2002-2010. The concern for public attitudes and mass media coverage remains on the card; while language has shifted from 'public understanding' to 'public engagement' and environmental concerns have waned then waxed. The bibliometric analysis traces the position of PUS in the inter-citation network of 165 related journals (ISI Web of Science citation database), grouped into 10 disciplines for the purpose of this analysis. Indicators derived from network logic show that the established position of PUS has been stable since 1997. PUS serves a varied brokerage role as gatekeeper into and liaison maker between disciplines. Its inter-citation network position allows PUS to perform inter-disciplinary boundary spanning work that offers a safe space for experimentation with ideas.

The rapid changes in nurse education are proceeding within the wider context of developments in adjacent educational fields, which are themselves subject to external influences, and one such development is the accreditation of prior experiential learning (APEL). In order to be critically aware of the potential involved in embracing this concept, it is necessary to clarify and examine the influencing factors which guide the current andragogical climate of nurse education, and those which predispose to the recognition of APEL. Utilizing a case-study approach, this paper will examine the relevant issues as they relate to experienced students pursuing the learning outcomes of Project 2000, and will address the question of value for all parties concerned.

No abstract