Global Diversity of Authors, Editors, and Journal Ownership Across Subdisciplines of Psychology: Current State and Policy Implications

Lin, Zhicheng; Li, Ningxi

doi:10.1177/17456916221091831

Cited by 35 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Understanding changes in authorship size is thus indispensable for devising effective science policy 2 . It also has critical ramifications for equity and diversity, since greater demands on resources (as signaled by the dominance of big teams) may further push away resource-stripped researchers, institutes, and nations from participating in and contributing to science 8 . We therefore seek to understand the current authorship size, its rate of change, and potential accounts for the changes in top neuroscience and psychology journals from a historical perspective.…”

Section: A Century Plus Of Exponential Authorship Inflation In Neuros...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exponential Authorship Inflation in Neuroscience and Psychology from the 1950s to the 2020s

Lin¹,

Lu²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How many researchers does it take to publish a paper in top journals in neuroscience and psychology? Manually coding 42,580 papers spanning 1879–2021 from 32 journals, we examine the evolution of authorship size and its rate of change, and evaluate forces that drive the changes. The average authorship size per paper has grown exponentially in neuroscience and psychology, at a rate of 50% and 31% over the last decade, reaching a record 10.4 and 4.8 authors in 2021, respectively. With the withering of single-authored papers rises a new type of authorship, group authors (e.g., a consortium). The exponential inflation in authorship size could not be attributed to editorial behaviors in for-profit journals, but is consistent with epistemic (e.g., research complexity) and behavioral (e.g., benefits of collaboration) forces. These findings suggest troubling implications for research reproducibility, innovations, equity/diversity, and ethics, calling for policy deliberations to address potential negative ramifications.

show abstract

Section: A Century Plus Of Exponential Authorship Inflation In Neuros...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exponential Authorship Inflation in Neuroscience and Psychology from the 1950s to the 2020s

Lin¹,

Lu²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fourth, the WEIRD bias also extends to researchers (Thalmayer et al, 2021) and journal editors (Altman & Cohen, 2021;Z. Lin & Li, 2022).…”

Section: An Undue Emphasis On the Cognitions Of Fit And Young Individ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond individual cognitions: Time for intervention science to focus on health context and audience

Chalabaev¹,

Cheval²,

Maltagliati³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intervention science faces a hazardous paradox: on the one hand, vulnerable populations (e.g., patients, people from low socio-economic background, older adults) are those for whom adoption of healthy behaviours is most urgent; on the other hand, behaviour change models are less predictive, and interventions less successful, in these populations. This commentary presents four reasons that may explain this issue: (1) research mostly focuses on what causes behaviour and how to change it, at the expense of investigating among whom and under what conditions models are valid; (2) models put an undue emphasis on individual cognitions; (3) most studies are not conducted on vulnerable populations; (4) most researchers are from high-income countries. Several avenues are proposed to address this issue: (a) providing a central place to the context and audience in health behaviour change modelisation, through collaborations with researchers from other disciplines and countries, and with members of the targeted audience; (b) better reporting samples’ socio-demographic characteristics and increasing samples’ diversity; (c) using more rigorous and innovative designs (e.g., powered randomised controlled trials, N-of-1 trials, intensive longitudinal studies). In conclusion, it becomes urgent to change the way we do research: the social utility and credibility of intervention science depend on it.

show abstract

“…To ensure that psychological science is not limited by any particular ideology, especially given that diverse researchers, methods, and participants are important for scientific innovation, replicability, and generalizability (Hofstra et al, 2020;Medin et al, 2017;Rozin, 2009), psychological scientists have for decades documented the shortcomings of a discipline that lacks cultural diversity, gender diversity, geographic diversity, political diversity, racial diversity, and more (e.g., Arnett, 2008;Betancourt & López, 1993;Buchanen at el., 2021;Cole, 2009;Duarte et al, 2015;Dupree & Boykin, 2021;Dupree & Kraus, 2021;Henrich et al, 2010;Honeycutt & Jussim, 2020;Jones & Dovidio, 2018;Lin & Li, 2022a;2022b;Markus & Kitayama, 1991;Nielsen et al, 2017;Dunham & Olson, 2016;Rowley & Camacho, 2015;Schmader, 2022;Wang, 2016). And in the specific domain of racial diversity, psychological scientists have documented such shortcomings for decades.…”

Section: Science (And Ideology)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if the editors, authors, and participants involved with the articles published in such a journal numerically represented the demographic groups from the specific geographical, socioeconomic, and institutional contexts in which those journals were located, one would not be justified in presenting the findings published in those journals as generalizable to all of humanity (see Cheon et al, 2020;Roberts & Mortenson, 2022). Relatedly, most editors at top psychology journals are not only White, they are also male and from the United States (Lin & Li, 2022a;2022b). How might base rates account for this?…”

Section: Base Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology

Roberts¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the spirit of America’s Shakespeare, August Wilson (1996), I have written this article as a testimony to the conditions under which I, and too many others, engage in scholarly discourse. I hope to make clear from the beginning that although the ideas presented here are not entirely my own – as they have been inherited from the minority of scholars who dared and managed to bring the most necessary, unpalatable, and unsettling truths about our discipline to the broader scientific community – I do not write for anyone but myself and those scholars who have felt similarly marginalized, oppressed, and silenced. And I write as a race scholar, meaning simply that I believe that race--and racism--affects the sociopolitical conditions in which humans, and scholars, develop their thoughts, feelings, and actions. I believe that it is important for all scholars to have a basic understanding of these conditions, as well as the landmines and pitfalls that define them, as they shape how research is conducted, reviewed, and disseminated. I also believe that to evolve one’s discipline into one that is truly robust and objective, it must first become diverse and self-aware. Any effort to suggest otherwise, no matter how scholarly it might present itself, is intellectually unsound.

show abstract

Global Diversity of Authors, Editors, and Journal Ownership Across Subdisciplines of Psychology: Current State and Policy Implications

Cited by 35 publications

References 63 publications

Exponential Authorship Inflation in Neuroscience and Psychology from the 1950s to the 2020s

Exponential Authorship Inflation in Neuroscience and Psychology from the 1950s to the 2020s

Beyond individual cognitions: Time for intervention science to focus on health context and audience

Dealing with Diversity in Psychology: Science and Ideology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About