Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 8, 2002, pp. 653-663
© 2002 Society of Pediatric Psychology
Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP), 1998-2002: Editor's Vale Dictum
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
All correspondence should be sent to Anne E. Kazak, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, 34th St. and Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4399. E-mail: kazak{at}email.chop.edu.
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction Journal Operation and FormatSummary of Submission and...Characteristics of Papers in...Endeavors, Initiatives, and...Closing CommentsReferences |
|---|
It has been an honor to serve as the Editor of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) for the past 5 years. In my opening editorial, I noted that developmentally the journal was in young adulthood, and I promised to mentor, coach, and facilitate its continued growth for the next 5 years (Kazak, 1998). At midcourse, I summarized general progress and noted emerging areas for JPP (Kazak, 2000a
). Following in the tradition established by the previous two
editors (La Greca, 1997;
Roberts, 1992), I have
prepared this Vale Dictum to summarize the journal's activities and
characteristics from 1998 through 2002 (volumes 23-27). This article reflects
on progress related to specific endeavors and initiatives during my term. It
also provides information on the process of editing the journal and makes some
observations that I hope will be helpful in describing the scientific
evolution of pediatric psychology and assist future authors, reviewers, and
editors. I have also compiled some data that will facilitate comparisons with
previous JPP editorial farewells and other articles summarizing
journal activities. |
Journal Operation and Format |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionJournal Operation and FormatSummary of Submission and...Characteristics of Papers in...Endeavors, Initiatives, and...Closing CommentsReferences |
|---|
Although stability has characterized the course of the journal over the past 5 years, some changes have been evident.
Associate Editors and Reviewers. The number of associate editors was increased to five in order to broaden the spectrum of expertise at the editorial level. The five editors, Christine Eiser, Jack Finney, Kathleen Lemanek, Anthony Spirito, and Robert Thompson, each handled a subset of submissions each year. They were also active in identifying and editing special issues. The size of the Editorial Board was maintained and members agreed to serve for 3 years initially. After 3 years, I rotated about 20% of the board and introduced new reviewers, particularly those with expertise in needed areas. We relied upon a large group of ad hoc reviewers.
In a survey of the Editorial Board that I conducted at the outset of my term, the board was nearly equally divided on the issue of student reviewers. About half indicated that we should use student reviewers, but an equivalent number felt that papers should be reviewed only by "peers." Trainees often assisted with reviews, under the supervision of a member of the Editorial Board. The process of writing reviews is an essential step in the socialization of researchers. It worked well as a supervised experience, with guidance about how to phrase criticism constructively and assurance of confidentiality.
Format Changes. The journal's physical appearance changed,
coinciding with a change in publisher to Oxford University Press. The page
layout increased to a standard 8
-by-11-inch page, like most other
biomedical journals, providing more flexibility in layout and enhanced
readability. We also redesigned the cover, printed the table of contents on
it, and changed its color. While maintaining American Psychological
Association (APA) style, two changes were made that were seen as providing a
more parallel format to medical journals. One was adding the academic degrees
of authors. The other change was using a structured abstract. Occasionally,
photographs were published. Feedback about these changes was positive,
although one author expressed surprise when a photograph of a bird appeared on
the back of reprints.
Increased Publication Frequency. We increased the frequency of publication and were published eight times per year beginning in 2000. This increase was approved by the Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP) Board in light of the overall scientific and fiscal health of the journal.
Electronic Publication. A major change in the journal was the transition to electronic publishing. In 2000, the journal became available on-line (www.pepsy.oupjournals.org) hosted by HighWire Press, an electronic journal Web site with over 300 journals, including many highly respected sources in psychology and medicine. The Web site includes a searchable archive of JPP contents from 1989 to the present. Access via the Web site has increased over the past 2 years, with an average of about 6,000 "hits" per week.
|
Summary of Submission and Publication Data |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionJournal Operation and FormatSummary of Submission and...Characteristics of Papers in...Endeavors, Initiatives, and...Closing CommentsReferences |
|---|
Numbers of Papers Submitted. With regard to numbers of submissions to JPP, there is a steady general upward trend. In the past 5 years, a total of 712 papers were submitted, ranging from 110 to 178 per year, averaging 142 per year. By way of comparison, Roberts (1992
) processed 597 and La
Greca (1997) 644 during their
terms.
Acceptance Rate. JPP has remained a highly competitive journal in
terms of the percentage of papers accepted for publication. Our acceptance
rate ranged from 21% (for papers submitted in 1997) to 34% for papers
submitted in 1999 (1998, 22%, 2000, 28%; 2001, 25%). The higher rate of
acceptance in 1999 appears to have been a temporary exception related to the
increase in number of issues published beginning in 2000. This is very
consistent with data presented by Roberts
(1992) with 26.6% acceptances
and La Greca's (1997) note of
"rejection rate averaging over 80%."
Editorial Lag. The editorial lag is the amount of time from when a paper is received by the editorial office and the date that an editorial decision letter is made. We maintained a consistent 7-week median editorial lag across the 5 years, with a somewhat shorter median lag of 6 weeks for 2000. This figure is also highly consistent with previous JPP editorial reports.
Publication Lag. An another statistic is the time between a paper's acceptance and the journal's actual publication, or the publication lag. Our publication lag ranged from 8-11 months across these 5 years, with a median of 9 months.
Social Science Citation Index. The Social Science Citation Index impact factor reflects the number of citations to the journal in a 2-year period, relative to the number of items published. Over time, JPP has maintained an impact factor between 0.9 and 1.9. For example, in 2000 (the last year for which data are currently available), our impact factor was 1.541. Journals are also ranked in terms of their citations. Within the category of developmental psychology, JPP was ranked 11/49 for 2000. This represents a steady increase in rank from 1997 (20/49) and indicates that we are in the top quartile of journals within developmental psychology in terms of citations.
|
Characteristics of Papers in Volumes 23-27 |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionJournal Operation and FormatSummary of Submission and...Characteristics of Papers in...Endeavors, Initiatives, and...Closing CommentsReferences |
|---|
The majority of papers published in JPP have been reports of empirical research (Table I). This is consistent with prior reports (La Greca, 1997
; Roberts,
1992) and with the mission of JPP. We rejected good
papers, many of which were subsequently published in other peer-reviewed
journals.
|
During this term, we maintained JPP's tradition of publishing special issues. Six topical special issues were published (Table II). The special issues provided an opportunity to invite and solicit papers on particular topics that we wished to highlight. In particular, the special issues on primary care, international settings, clinical interventions, adolescents, and low income and ethnic minority children and families helped to expand our attention to these needed areas. In general, each special issue had a large number of submissions, reflecting the interest in the areas and ensuring that special issues maintained a competitive rate of acceptance.
|
In addition to the special issues, we embarked on a major endeavor to
publish a series of review papers, with related commentaries, on Empirically
Supported Treatments in Pediatric Psychology. Edited by Anthony Spirito, this
series consisted of 11 review papers (Table
II). The series was important in linking pediatric psychology with
the broader field of clinical psychology and the larger movement underscoring
the importance of providing data-based intervention. It also proved to be
helpful in communicating with pediatric colleagues and further establishing
pediatric psychologists as clinical researchers and scientists. The papers in
the series have been used widely to disseminate the empirical support for our
interventions, and the papers are those for which I have received the most
positive feedback. Building on the papers in the special issue, we are
publishing a book intended to expand on existing work to enhance the
development, refinement, and evaluation of interventions
(Spirito & Kazak, in
press).
On occasion, articles on a common theme were grouped together as a special section (Table II). While unsolicited review papers were welcome, only a few were submitted. One editorial observation is that the quality of review papers appeared lower overall than empirical reports. In a review article, the reviewers and I expected a thorough, integrative, and well-written summary of research in a specific area, with thoughtful considerations for future research and clinical implications. We found, however, that many of the review papers submitted read like dissertation introductions, with more plodding discussion of sequential studies and without integrative, forward-thinking conclusions.
Commentaries were often used to highlight issues related to articles. They
were almost always invited, consistent with La Greca's
(1997) earlier experience. It
is unclear why commentaries were not submitted without invitation. Other types
of papers published included three editorial papers (including this one),
introductions to special sections, official presidential and other invited
addresses of the SPP, one article on the history of JPP, and two
memorial pieces. Despite earlier efforts to invite case reports and to clarify
the expectations for them (Drotar, La
Greca, Lemanek, & Kazak, 1995), few were submitted.
Many Editorial Board members suggested that book reviews be eliminated from the journal. They are difficult to obtain in a timely manner. While readers like to read reviews, we decided to limit them to occasional reviews of new books related to papers in a particular issue and to devote maximal space for original research.
Patients/Diseases Represented. With regard to the empirical papers
published, JPP's focus remained pediatric chronic illness. Half of
the published papers (52.0%) related to chronic illness. These data show an
increase over that reported by La Greca
(1997), 39%, and Robert's
(1992) report of 35.9%. In
Table III, data from 1998-2002
are compared with La Greca's
(1997) report for 1992-1997.
The data indicate a sustained and more specific focus on chronic illness.
|
Interestingly, some of the areas in which La Greca
(1997) reported increases
(e.g., injury, HIV/AIDS) were not represented to the same extent recently. An
area in which growth is seen during the past 5 years relates to studies of
health and illness based on healthy samples (generally using data collected
from children in schools or in primary care practices). These papers are
varied, reflecting papers in the special issue on primary care, neurocognitive
function of healthy infants, pain, prevention, and health promotion. Even
assuming that some of the papers coded as "Other" by La Greca may
include these samples, there appears to have been an increase over the past 5
years.
Although relatively few papers were published that focused explicitly on prevention, many papers reflect the preventive orientation in child health. In addition to school-based samples, we expanded the special issue on adolescence to accommodate the large number of submissions related to health promotion. Interestingly, the only special issue that was attempted but did not develop into a full issue was related to the Healthy People 2010 initiative. Jack Finney, an associate editor with expertise in prevention, solicited papers in this area but few were submitted. The low response is difficult to explain, given the breadth of Healthy People 2010 and the clear applicability of our work to public health in general. It may reflect the minority of prevention researchers who view themselves as pediatric psychologists.
Developmental Issues. JPP published papers that spanned from birth through young adulthood. Specifically, from 1998-2002 percentages for major developmental stages were as follows: infants (5.7%), toddlers (6.2%), school age children (21.0%), adolescents (18.8%), and young adults (2.2%). However, 47.0% included participants who cut across developmental age groups. Thus, there is clear evidence that the journal publishes research on children of all ages, with a reasonable distribution across developmental stages.
Of graver concern is the ongoing inclusion of samples with extremely broad
age ranges. It is not unusual, for example, to see samples ranging in age from
2 or 6 to 16 years and even some as broad as birth to 22 years. While this
breadth in age range may be inevitable to some extent, due to the low
incidences of many pediatric conditions, it is discouraging to note that
Roberts (1992) reported a
similar finding 10 years ago. These data do not take into account the ways in
which many authors "control" for age and interpret their data
developmentally. Nonetheless, the lack of focus on developmental stages in
pediatric illness remains a concern that may be addressed through multisite
investigations and careful selection of measures to assure developmental
integrity. Our understanding of developmental processes in health and illness
will ultimately be limited if our research designs fail to embrace
developmental issues. Our two special issues devoted to adolescence represent
an important step in that direction.
|
Endeavors, Initiatives, and Related Comments |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionJournal Operation and FormatSummary of Submission and...Characteristics of Papers in...Endeavors, Initiatives, and...Closing CommentsReferences |
|---|
Collaboration with Pediatricians. One of the major initiatives during this term was to increase the integration of JPP within the medical community, particularly with respect to pediatricians. In order to do so, I appointed three pediatricians to the Editorial Board (Ronald Barr, Ellen Perrin, and Liana Clark) to join Lonnie Zeltzer, a member of the board for many years. Two child psychiatrists, Margaret Stuber and Fred Wamboldt, also joined the Editorial Board.
One approach by which we hoped to increase physician readership was with a special issue on primary care, edited by Terry Stancin. That is, the pediatric psychology research literature is applicable to primary care across many activities and disease and treatment concerns. However, pediatric psychologists are less frequently involved in primary care collaborations than in chronic illness and tertiary care activities.
The percentage of papers with physician authors ranged from 23% to 43%
across the 5-year period. Unfortunately, there is no comparative data from
prior years. In general, most authors are psychologists, and many have
published with physician collaborators. With regard to the affiliations of the
first authors, the largest number are from departments in medical schools
(49%-61%), with a consistent 34%-43% over the 5 years based in psychology
departments within universities. A smaller percentage has a home base in
another type of academic department or in a research institute. Only two
authors were outside of an academic setting. These data are consistent with
those of Elkins and Roberts
(1988) and Roberts
(1992).
International Focus. Another focus for JPP was to increase international exposure. For the first time, we appointed an Associate Editor outside of the United States, Christine Eiser in England. We also added Hans Koot from the Netherlands to the Editorial Board and utilized more ad hoc reviewers from the United Kingdom and Europe. Our special issue on International Issues in Pediatric Psychology, edited by Maureen Black and Christine Eiser, includes papers from areas of the world that have been previously underrepresented, such as Bangladesh and China.
The majority of papers continue to be from authors in the United States. Using the affiliation of the first author, 81%-94% of papers across the 5 years were from the United States. The second largest number came from Canada. Other countries from which two or more papers were published were the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Finland, Germany, and Israel. One paper each was published from Ireland, Australia, Switzerland, China, New Zealand, and Bangladesh. In addition, research conducted by psychologists in the United States was represented in studies of pediatric samples in Ethiopia, Australia, and India.
Interventions. A major effort has been made during the past 5
years to increase JPP's focus on intervention. The importance of
establishing the scientific basis for interventions in pediatric psychology is
uniformly recognized within our field. The results of a delphic survey of 50
members of Division 54, for example, showed that "pediatric psychology's
ability to demonstrate viability" was the most highly ranked area of
importance to the future of the field
(Brown & Roberts,
2000).
Support, and sometimes pressure, for empirically supported treatments comes from several sources. Within clinical psychology more broadly, empirically supported treatments have become a major focus of research. Our scientific tradition and our role in applied medical environments provide an ideal combination for showing how our interventions work. In medicine, data-based practice is essential, and practice guidelines based on scientific consensus are expected. As close collaborators with our medical colleagues, it is imperative that we speak the language of science, clinical trials, and treatment efficacy in treating patients. The pressures imposed by managed care and other economic forces have intensified the importance of showing that pediatric psychology interventions are effective and cost efficient.
Despite the importance of conducting research on interventions in pediatric
psychology, relatively few intervention papers have been published
historically in JPP. Roberts
(1992) reported that 9.1% of
papers published from 1988 to 1992 focused on intervention or "described
efforts to improve the status or functioning of a child, parent or
family." In a subsequent analysis of papers published in the journal
from 1990 to 1994, a similar percentage (10.8%) was reported for
intervention/therapy (Roberts, McNeal,
Randall, & Roberts, 1996). Of additional concern was the
absence of linkages of journal articles to clinical practice during these
years (Roberts et al., 1996).
In subsequent years, La Greca (1996) noted that the number of papers on
intervention increased during her editorial term (1993-1997) over those
published previously.
The first (and largest) JPP initiative to address intervention in
pediatric psychology was the series of 11 papers on Empirically Supported
Treatments (EST) in Pediatric Psychology, edited by Anthony Spirito. The
specific topics are listed in Table
I; they illustrate the focus in pediatric psychology on chronic
conditions, behavioral concerns, and treatment-related complications. The
reviews follow the general criteria established for empirically supported
treatments in clinical psychology but include important modifications
necessary to reflect the state of intervention science in pediatric psychology
and the low incidence of most pediatric conditions in the series
(Spirito, 1999). These papers
have been very well received and have provided thoughtful scientific summaries
of data related to common areas of practice. Commentaries associated with each
of the articles in the series were solicited in order to highlight pertinent
issues on each topic and to provide directions for future research and
application. On a more sobering note, further analysis suggested that the
studies in the EST series often overlooked issues related to cultural
diversity (Clay, Mordhurst, & Lehn, 2002). Finally, Drotar
(2002) provided a critique of
the series, emphasizing the importance of greater attention to clinical
significance, theory-guided intervention, and appropriate and varied
statistical approaches in establishing criteria for empirically supported
treatments.
The second effort related to intervention was another special issue, on
Clinical Interventions in Pediatric Psychology, edited by Dennis Drotar and
Kathleen Lemanek. This special issue provides a complement to the EST articles
in that the emphasis is on the clinical utility and significance of
intervention studies. As Drotar and Lemanek
(2001) note, measurement of
changes that matter to patients, families, and providers is essential and
necessitates a process that bridges rigorous scientific criteria and clinical
relevance. The articles in this special issue provide illustrations of
evaluation research in pediatric psychology as well as outcome studies and a
case study.
The number of empirical research reports on intervention remains quite low in JPP. We published 14 papers from 1998 to 2002 that evaluate an intervention. Three of these were published as Brief Reports because the data, while important, were viewed as being preliminary in nature. Table IV summarizes the intervention studies. It is interesting to note that 9 of 13 studies are randomized clinical trials, widely believed to be the most rigorous test of treatments. Four of the reports extend our knowledge base related to procedural preparation and several evaluate interventions for patients, families, and peers of children with chronic illnesses.
|
In addition to these reports of intervention outcomes, we also published
other papers, including program evaluations, that offer data that are
important and useful for interventions. For all types of papers, most authors
were asked to link their study data to intervention implications whenever
possible. Finally, we published two papers that illustrate clinical practice
that we hope will provide direction for future intervention research
(Barrera, 2000;
Kazak, Simms, & Rourke,
2002).
Conducting Clinical Research in the 21st Century. With the growth of research in pediatric psychology, methodological advances are seen, but few summaries and critiques of methods are available. The special issue on methodology provides thoughtful overviews, examples, and discussions of important and frequently used designs, methods, and analysis issues such as approaches to multisource/multimethod data, contrasts and correlations, developmental issues, and mediating and moderating effects, among others. We hope that the papers in this collection will be widely cited as our methodologies evolve and refine.
Indeed, there has been significant growth in clinical research generally over the past 5 years, as well as parallel developments related to the ethical treatment of human subjects and both institutional and governmental oversight of the research process. Advances in research are evident and have made it necessary for us to place the research that we conduct as pediatric psychologists within the broader context of clinical research in medicine. In order to examine publications in JPP with regard to some of these changes, I examined the following:
- Research Funding. Over time, the importance of obtaining external
funding for research has increased. Particularly with the changes in health
care during the 1990s, psychologists found it increasingly important to
procure funding to sustain their research, particularly for those employed in
medical schools. Funding from the National Institute of Health (NIH) remains
the "gold standard," with its highly competitive peer review
process and financial incentives to institutions with regard to status and
economic issues. In terms of papers that acknowledge grant support and those
that indicate funding from an institute of the NIH, 29%-70% of papers
acknowledged a grant and 19%-38% noted this to be funding from an
NIH-sponsored grant. Roberts
(1992) found that 56.6% of
papers published from 1988 to 1992 cited grant support. Thus, while some-what
difficult to interpret (and grant acknowledgment may have been overlooked in
some papers), grant support for research papers is consistent and likely
increasing, with federal awards sponsoring a substantive amount of research
published in JPP.
- Multisite Investigations. Clinical research is believed to advance
in part through the ability to conduct studies at more than one institution in
order to accrue larger and more representative samples. The recommendation for
multisite investigations is very common in the Discussion sections of our
papers. Table I shows that
7%-28% of empirical papers published from 1998 to 2002 were based on data from
more than one study site. There are no comparable data from previous years.
The data appear to indicate that data from larger collaborative studies are
being submitted to JPP.
- Ethical and Regulatory Concerns. At the most basic level, it is
necessary that research protocols be reviewed and approved by Institutional
Review Boards (IRBs) at participating institutions. For research involving
human subjects, both adults and children, the determination of how consent
and/or assent should be obtained is essential. Although all authors provided
written documentation of compliance with the APA Ethical Principles,
acknowledgment that research has appropriate IRB oversight and approved
consent/assent procedures is necessary. Reports of IRB approval were variable,
but increased steadily over the 5 years, from 22% to 61%
(Table I). This change was
likely due in part to my awareness of this concern and request for this
information during manuscript revisions. Reports of assent and consent also
increased over the term from 50% to 84%. Using data from the 1997 volume of
JPP, Sifers et al.
(2002) found that 58.6% of
articles mentioned parent consent and 24.1% noted child assent. This rate
compared favorably with data that they presented from other pediatric
psychology and child journals.
Further clarity is necessary in this area. That is, there are two steps (IRB approval, consent/assent), and both should be reported. IRB approval indicates that the study protocol has been reviewed independently and that the research has been approved. However, IRB approval does not necessary imply that consent/assent was obtained. The IRB might indicate, for example, that consent is not necessary for a particular study. Local IRBs ensure that research is conducted ethically within a particular community. Of course, it is also important to know that consent and assent were actually obtained. These comments in no way suggest that pediatric psychologists fall short of compliance with research regulations. They do, however, raise the concern that we can easily include information that will demonstrate our awareness of and compliance with important developments in regulatory compliance and research ethics.
Documenting the History of Pediatric Psychology. The journal
published its 25th volume in 2000, the same year that the SPP became a
division of the APA (Division 54). To mark these achievements, I researched
the history of JPP (Kazak,
2000b). The material assembled showed the steady growth and
maturity of the journal, in terms of quantities of papers and in the focusing
of the field, most notably on empirical research related largely to pediatric
chronic illness. Perhaps most interesting was the opportunity to reflect on
the stability of the journal and its ability to thrive and survive over a
quarter century.
Related to the development of JPP and the field of pediatric psychology, I invited prominent pediatric psychologists to write articles reflecting on their professional and personal evolution in the field and called this series "Pioneers in Pediatric Psychology." My hope in publishing these papers (by Donald Routh, Eugene Walker, Dennis Drotar, and Gary Mesibov) was to show the evolution and breadth of the field. I thought that the articles would be helpful to students, showing the multitude of paths that people have taken in achieving success in our field, and that they would be inspiring to those struggling with trainee and early career challenges.
Diversity. We live in an increasingly diverse society. Over the course of my editorial term, I have become more attentive to the ways in which JPP can better reflect the diversity of children and families that we serve in terms of their gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.
The JPP editorial team and board reflect a fairly even
distribution with regard to gender. This was intentional, but by no means
difficult. Providing editorial opportunities for highly qualified pediatric
psychologists, regardless of gender, is an important role of a journal editor.
At the same time, it is essential that attention be given to gender; Recent
evidence continues to document the challenges faced by women in academic
psychology (Kite et al.,
2001). In terms of journal leadership, data from APA journals show
substantive increases in women editors, associate editors, and reviewers
(Kite et al., 2001). For
example, 32% of APA journals were edited by women in 2000 and 37% of associate
editors were women. Thus, JPP has appeared to have achieved a more
gender-balanced editorial team than is typical in our field.
We also had strong representation of female first authors from 1998 to
2002, ranging from 56% to 77%. There is a trend toward increasing numbers of
women authors. That is, Roberts and Elkins (1988) reported that in 1976-1977
there were 26.2% female authors (their data included all authors), with an
increase to 55.2% in 1985-1986. While it is tempting to attribute this solely
to the increasing number of women receiving doctoral degrees in psychology, it
is worth noting comparisons with other national data. Gender representation in
academia remains skewed, with proportionately fewer women at higher academic
ranks and in terms of leadership positions
(Kite et al., 2001). Although
these are complex issues, it is reassuring to see that research reports
written by women as lead authors are being published in JPP, as
publications in highly competitive peer-reviewed journals are required for
academic success.
With respect to study participants, we maintained a consistent nearly equal balance of males and females over this 5-year period (Table I). The majority of papers report data describing the racial and ethnic background of study participants and also provide some indication of data related to socioeconomic status (Table I). In general, the majority of study participants were Caucasian, although diversity was seen in nearly all samples where heterogeneity would be expected, based on disease and geographic location. The special issue on ethnic minority and low-income families in pediatric psychology generated a large number of submissions. Individually and as a group, these papers provide important data on ethnic minority youths and their families, both in terms of chronic illness and health promotion.
Examination of the papers published from 1998 to 2002 indicates that
inclusion of data from family members and studies that examine children with
health care concerns that transcend systems (e.g. families, peers, schools,
health care settings) remains limited. The most common source of data remains
patients, largely via self-report questionnaires, or from testing data. When
data from more than one person were published, it was overwhelmingly patient
and parent-report. "Parent" generally referred to mothers,
although many samples included much smaller representations of fathers and
other care-givers. A smaller number of studies included data from mothers and
fathers, with two papers focusing exclusively on fathers, reinforcing the
persuasive points raised by Seagull
(2000) in her criticism of the
lack of a family orientation in pediatric psychology. The irony of the lack of
family research in JPP is not lost on this editor, whose own work
rests at the intersection of pediatric and family psychology. Indeed, the need
for research that examines pediatric illnesses in context is clear.
|
Closing Comments |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionJournal Operation and FormatSummary of Submission and...Characteristics of Papers in...Endeavors, Initiatives, and...Closing CommentsReferences |
|---|
It is challenging to summarize 5 years of editing in a single paper. While hoping that the data and comments presented in this paper are interesting to general readers (as opposed to only editors who generally relish details of the editorial process), I offer a few general comments. First is the obvious strength of JPP as a scientific outlet. It is a highly competitive journal that has grown and developed to be (arguably) the top journal in its specialty area. The data presented in this report should be helpful in assuring that papers in this journal are viewed as quality publications. I hope that it will also encourage authors to continue to send their best papers to JPP.
The major content area of JPP is pediatric chronic illness. This has been clear throughout the 25-year history of the journal, but may now be even more focused. The overall amount of quality work in chronic illness may has increased. It may also be the case that the chronic course of more pediatric conditions has been appreciated. Even with an increase in number of issues per volume, chronic illness remains most prominent. Although this report summarized work that was accepted, there was no bias apparent to me in terms of those accepted versus submitted by topic. The increase in number of papers based on data from samples of non-ill children (e.g., school and community samples) also indicates that JPP is publishing work that extends our appreciation of health and illness.
One apparent issue facing JPP concerns future growth. The journal is highly competitive and maintains a specific focus. It is clearly the outlet of choice for a subset of psychologists and for selected areas of work. Perhaps it should retain this scope and focus. Alternatively, some areas of related work are under-represented and a large number of quality papers are rejected. There is relatively little attention, for example, to professional practice issues. Additionally, research on families and other systems remains less prominent that might be expected. Over the next several years, an increase in the number of papers related to intervention would be expected. Physicians and researchers outside of psychology do not typically send their work to us; as a result, we probably lose the opportunity to publish a subset of papers that are more truly multidisciplinary and that authors direct toward a broader audience. There is no clear answer to the question, and no recommendation intended in these comments. However, a broader array of work could be identified, and, with a well-crafted business plan, expansion might be considered.
Each issue of JPP rests on the efforts of many individuals. I have been fortunate as Editor to have worked with an outstanding team of associate editors, a dedicated and thoughtful editorial board, and many energetic and devoted ad hoc reviewers. The collective commitment of these colleagues is over-whelming in terms of the hours spent reading papers, writing detailed and constructive reviews, and integrating reviews into decision letters. Behind the scenes, the editorial process has been supported by the efforts of Carmen Akins, who tirelessly organized a momentous amount of e-mail and paper, helped ensure that reviews and decisions were completed in a timely manner, and worked to meet all our deadlines! We have also had strong working relationships with the editorial team at Oxford University Press and the support of the Executive Committee of Division 54 of the APA, which have maximized our ability to produce a high quality journal. I feel very fortunate to have edited JPP and contributed to the dissemination of knowledge in our field. In closing, I can only say that being an editor is really not as onerous as many seem to think; The rewards clearly outweigh the inevitable challenges. Thank you all for helping to make it an enjoyable experience!
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
I wish to thank Jackie Fox, Annette La Greca, Kathy Lemanek, and Michael Roberts for their comments on a draft of this paper.
Received February 20, 2002; accepted March 1, 2002
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionJournal Operation and FormatSummary of Submission and...Characteristics of Papers in...Endeavors, Initiatives, and...Closing CommentsReferences |
|---|
Barrera, M. (2000). Brief clinical report: Procedural pain and anxiety management with mother and sibling as cotherapists. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 25, 117-121.
Brown, J., Bakeman, R., Celano, M., Demi, A., Kobrynski, L., &
Wilson, S. (2002). Home-based asthma education of young
low-income children and their families. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 27,
677-688.
Brown, K., & Roberts, M. (2000). Future Issues in Pediatric Psychology: Delphic Survey. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 7, 5-15.
Chen, E., Craske, M., Katz, E., Schwartz, E., & Zeltzer, L.
(2000). Pain-sensitive temperament: Does it predict procedural
distress and response to psychological treatment among children with cancer?
Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
25, 269-278.
Chen, E., Zeltzer, L., Craske, M., & Katz, E. (1999). Alteration of memory in the reduction of children's distress during repeated aversive medical procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 481-490.[ISI][Medline]
Clay, D., Modhorst, M., & Lehn, L. (2002).
Empirically supported treatments in pediatric psychology: Where is the
diversity? Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
27, 325-337.
Drotar, D. (2002). Enhancing reviews of psychological
treatments with pediatric populations: Thoughts on next steps.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
27, 167-176.
Drotar, D., La Greca, A., Lemanek, K., & Kazak, A.
(1995). Case reports in pediatric psychology: Uses and guidelines
for authors and reviewers. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
20, 549-565.
Drotar, D., & Lemanek, K. (2001). Steps toward a
clinically relevant science of interventions in pediatric settings:
Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 26,
385-394.
Elkins, P., & Roberts, M. (1988). Journal of
Pediatric Psychology: A content analysis of articles over its first 10
years. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
13, 575-594.
Greco, P., Pendley, J., McDonell, K., & Reeves, G.
(2001). A peer group intervention for adolescents with type 1
diabetes and their best friends. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 26,
485-490.
Hains, A., Davies, H., Parton, E., & Silverman, A.
(2001). Brief report: A cognitive behavioral intervention for
distressed adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 26,
61-66.
Kazak, A. (1999). Editorial: Change and continuity in
the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 23,
1-3.
Kazak, A. (2000a). Editorial: Journal of Pediatric
Psychology 2000. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
25, 1-3.
Kazak, A. (2000b). Journal of Pediatric
Psychology: A brief history. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 25,
463-470.
Kazak, A., Simms, S., & Rourke, M. (2002). Family
systems practice in pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 27,
133-143.
Kite, M., Russo, N., Brehm, S., Fouad, N., Hall, C., Hyde, J., & Keita, G. (2001). Women psychologists in academia: Mixed progress, unwarranted complacency. American Psychologist, 56, 1080-1098.[Medline]
La Greca, A. (1997). Reflections and perspectives on
pediatric psychology: Editor's vale dictum. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 22,
759-770.
Lobato, D., & Kao, B. (2002). Integrated
sibling-parent group intervention to improve sibling knowledge and adjustment
to chronic illness. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
27, 711-716.
Roberts, M. (1992). Vale dictum: An editor's view of
the field in pediatric psychology and its journal. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 17,
785-805.
Roberts, M., McNeal, R., Randall, C., & Roberts, J.
(1996). A necessary reemphasis on integrating explicative
research with the pragmatics of pediatric psychology. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 21,
107-114.
Scharff, L., Marcus, D., & Masek, B. (2002). A
controlled study of minimal-contact thermal biofeedback treatment in children
with migraine. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
27, 109-119.
Schiff, W., Holtz, K., Peterson, N., & Rakusan, T.
(2001). Effect of an intervention to reduce procedural pain and
distress for children with HIV infection. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 26,
417-427.
Seagull, E. (2000). Beyond mothers and children:
Finding the family in pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 25,
161-169.
Sifers, S., Puddy, R., Warren, J., & Roberts, M.
(2002). Reporting of demographics, methodology, and ethical
procedures in journals in pediatric and child psychology. Journal
of Pediatric Psychology, 27,
19-25.
Spirito, A. (1999). Introduction. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 24, 87-90.
Spirito, A., & Kazak, A. (in press). Effective treatments in pediatric psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Streisand, R., Rodrigue, J., Houck, C., Graham-Pole, J., &
Berlant, N. (2000). Brief report: Parents of children undergoing
bone marrow transplantation: Documenting stress and piloting a psychological
intervention program. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
25, 331-337.
Wysocki, T., Harris, M., Greco, P., Bubb, J., Danda, C., Harvery,
L., McDonell, K., Taylor, A., & White, N. (2000). Randomized
controlled trial of behavior therapy for families of adolescents with
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 25,
23-33.
Zelikovsky, N., Rodrigue, J., Gidycz, C., & Davis, M.
(2000). Cognitive behavioral and behavioral interventions help
young children cope during a voiding cystourethrogram. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 25,
535-543.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. T. Brown Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP), 2003 2007: Editor's Vale Dictum J. Pediatr. Psychol., December 11, 2007; (2007) jsm111v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. S. Aylward, M. C. Roberts, J. Colombo, and R. G. Steele Identifying the Classics: An Examination of Articles Published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology from 1976 2006 J. Pediatr. Psychol., December 11, 2007; (2007) jsm122v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. D. Nelson, B. S. Aylward, and R. G. Steele Structural Equation Modeling in Pediatric Psychology: Overview and Review of Applications J. Pediatr. Psychol., October 31, 2007; (2007) jsm107v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. L. Blount, L. E. Simons, K. A. Devine, T. Jaaniste, M. Psychol, L. L. Cohen, C. T. Chambers, and L. G. Hayutin Evidence-based Assessment of Coping and Stress in Pediatric Psychology J. Pediatr. Psychol., October 15, 2007; (2007) jsm071v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Steele, M. M. Graves, M. C. Roberts, and R. G. Steele Examining the Influence of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: An Empirical Approach J. Pediatr. Psychol., March 1, 2007; 32(2): 150 - 153. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Drotar Commentary: Randomized Controlled Trials of Psychological Interventions with Pediatric Populations: The Time has Come and the Journal of Pediatric Psychology is Ready J. Pediatr. Psychol., July 1, 2005; 30(5): 409 - 412. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. E. Kazak Evidence-Based Interventions for Survivors of Childhood Cancer and Their Families J. Pediatr. Psychol., January 1, 2005; 30(1): 29 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Phipps Commentary: Contexts and Challenges in Pediatric Psychosocial Oncology Research: Chasing Moving Targets and Embracing "Good News" Outcomes J. Pediatr. Psychol., January 1, 2005; 30(1): 41 - 45. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||