A workshop presented at the 8 th Chinese Psychologists Conference “ 华人心理学家学术研讨会 ” , Beijing, August 26-28, 2013.

1. Publishing in International Journals Ying-yi Hong 康萤仪 A workshop presented at the 8th Chinese Psychologists Conference “华人心理学家学术研讨会”, Beijing, August 26-28, 2013.

2. Welcome to the celebration of the launch of Beijing Normal University’ssponsorship ofAdvances in Culture & Psychology

6. Publishing in International Journals • 1. What are the factors that determine editorial decisions? • 2. What are the common mistakes in paper submission? • 3. Major issues to bear in mind if you want your paper to be accepted. • 4. Publishing is just the start – what is high impact? H-index

7. 2009 UIUC-CSSA Moon Gala 舞台剧《牛奶香蕉》——死了都要改 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1Qiq3B_Ob4

8. Publishing in International Journals • 1. What are the factors that determine editorial decisions?

9. Editor’s considerations • Have the interests of the contributors’ career in mind. • Have the interests of the readers in mind. • Have the interests of the reviewers in mind. • Have the interests of the Publisher in mind. Always read the Editorial Policy of the journal before you start writing!!! 9

10. Editorial Decision Process I: Desktop Rejection Decision Point 1: Is the manuscript appropriate for the journal? • Yes next stage -- send out for review; • Noreject. Decision Point 2: Will the manuscript survive the review process? • Possibly next stage -- send out for review; • Noreject. 10

11. Responses to desktop rejection • appeal; almost never works • submit the manuscript to another journal, if suitability is the only issue; • develop the theory further and/or collect new data 11

12. Decision Process II – after reviews Decision Point 1: Has this research contribute enough beyond the previous research on the topic? Key criteria: incremental value and potential impact. • Yes or Possible  next stage – revise and resubmit; • No reject. Decision Point 2: Are there major and minor problems in the manuscript? Key criteria: clear writing and robust findings. 12

13. Decision Process III: Types of R&R?

14. A million dollar question:How to judge the contribution of a research/paper?

15. What are contributions for journals? • Research that makes significant contributions typically has (1) a strong theoretical framework and (2) addresses an issue or problem that is important to the community of the audience [e.g., world, society, discipline]. • Surprise (counter-intuitive) -- When viewing what is a contribution or not, the most significant contributions create what I call the “wow, that’s really neat” response from reviewers and readers. Indications of surprise: After reading the article: • (1) wow, I wish I had thought about that before; • (2) that is a counterintuitive and insightful result; • (3) that is not what I expected but I am now convinced that is how things work or might work; or • (4) that really changes how people do things – such as doing research, practicing therapy, marketing, management, social policy, parenting, etc.

16. 3. Counter-intuitive: the very best manuscripts (1) are built upon sound theory but take an unexpected twist [and] (2) sometimes they find a counterintuitive way of combining theory across disciplines or uncover nuances that remained undetected. 4. Resolving controversies: An article can provide a way to resolve existing contradictions or controversies in the field. Even better, an article can stimulate the reader to see the world in a different way. It can provide a new perspective and/or suggest solutions for solving real-life problems.

17. Two common problems 1. Doing something new (no one else has done before) is necessary but not sufficient!!! “… no one previously has looked at the relationship between X and Y. My research will fill this knowledge gap in the literature…” Why should any one be interested in the relationship between X and Y to begin with? 2. The application of a theory to a novel context can be interesting but not sufficient!!! Need to discuss how the theory is extended, refined, or limited by the boundary conditions because of the novel context.

18. Ladik & Stewart (2008) the Contribution Continuum

19. Daft, R. L. (1995). Why I recommended that your paper be rejected and what you can do about it. Problems for 111 manuscripts reviewed by Academy of Management Journal and Administrative Science Quarterly

20. Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1281-1303. • Building new theories X Testing existing theories • Reporters • Builders • Testers • Qualifiers • Expanders

21. Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan (2007)

22. Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan (2007)

23. Are these publication trends also observed in personality and social psychology journals?

24. A million dollar question:What is a theory? How to write theory clearly ?

25. What is a Theory? (from Sutton & Barry, 1995) 1. “Theory is the answer to queries of why.” 2. “Theory is about the connections among phenomena, a story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur. Theory emphasizes the nature of causal relationships.” 3. “Strong theory delves into underlying processes so as to understand the systematic reasons for a particular occurrence or nonoccurrence.” 4. “It often burrows deeply into microprocesses, laterally into neighboring concepts, or in an upward direction, tying itself to broader social phenomena.” 5. “It usually is laced with a set of convincing and logically interconnected arguments.” 6. “It can have implications that we have not seen or run counter to our common sense.” 7. “A good theory explains, predicts, and delights.”

26. How to buildand test a theory?Hong, Y., Chao, M., Yang, Y., & Rosner J. (2010). A Socially Grounded Approach to Test Theories in Psychology: Experiences from Conducting Social Identity Research. Acta Psychological Sinica. (心理学报), 42, 22-36.Debate:- Ye, H.-S., & Stam, H. J. (2012). What is a good theory? A perspective from theoretical psychology.ActaPsychologicaSinica, 44, 133−137.- Hong, Y. & Chao, M. (2012). Steps to building a good theory – Embracing diversity. ActaPsychologiaSinica, 44, 138-141. This article can be downloaded from: http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/YYHong/

27. The 1st step, selecting phenomena, is to select various similar phenomena of interest, usually with a question of why or how. The 2nd step, finding critical commonality, is to identify commonality (similarity) across different observed phenomena so that we can apply basic psychological principles/theories to understand complex phenomena The 3rd step, abstracting/theorizing, is to derive hypotheses from the theory by abstracting ideas from the specific phenomena. The 4th step, hypothesis testing, is to operationalize and to test the specific hypotheses by various methods.

28. Sutton & Barry (1995) What Theory is Not Five “Wrong Way” Signs: 1. References Are Not Theory – listing literature without explaining the logical links is not a theory. Example: "This pattern is consistent with findings that aggression provokes the 'fight' response (Frijda, 1986) and that anger is a contagious emotion (Schacter and Singer, 1962; Baron, 1977)." This sentence lists publications that contain conceptual arguments (and some findings). But there is no theory because no logic is presented to explain why aggression provokes "fight" or why anger is contagious. Additional explanation is needed.

29. 2. Data Are Not Theory – citing research findings only is not a theory. Correct: Blend previous findings and logical reasoning to justify hypotheses; i.e., causal reasoning of how previous findings lead up to the proposed hypotheses is needed.

30. 3. Lists of Variables or Constructs Are Not Theory “A theory must also explain why variables or constructs come about or why they are connected... Simply listing a set of antecedentsdoes not make a theoretical argument. The key issue is why a particular set of variables are expected to be strong predictors.”

31. 4. Hypotheses (or Predictions) Are Not Theory “A theoretical model is not simply a statement of hypothesis. Hypotheses do not (and should not) contain logical arguments about why empirical relationships are expected to occur. Hypotheses are concise statements about what is expected to occur, not why it is expected to occur. Hypotheses can be an important part of a well-crafted conceptual argument. They serve as crucial bridges between theory and data, making explicit how the variables and relationships that follow from a logical argument will be operationalized.” Theory  Hypotheses  Empirical Test and Data

32. Publishing in International Journals • 3. Major issues to bear in mind if you want your paper to be accepted. a. First submission – clear writing; b. R & R – answer all the issues.

33. Writing a journal article WritingArticle.pdf – a comprehensive guide to writing an empirical journal article by DarlyBem • Analyze the data and write the results section first. • “There are two possible articles you can write: (a) the article you planned to write when you designed your study or (b) the article that makes the most sense now that you have seen the results.” Is (a) or (b) correct?

34. Writing a journal article • “A journal article should not be a personal history of your stillborn thoughts.” • “Your overriding purpose is to tell the world what you have learned from your study. If your results suggest a compelling framework for their presentation, adopt it and make the most instructive findings your centerpiece.

35. Before you start writing Plan from day 1 of your research! What is the mission of your paper? What are the potential incremental values? What is the main story? Who would find your story interesting? How many studies do you have? Which one would you include in this paper? In what order would you arrange the studies? Which journal do you target at?

36. A Million dollar question:How to come up with the story? Theory Revise! Original Hypothesis Findings First study

37. A Million dollar question:How to come up with the story? Revised Theory Revise! revised Hypothesis Findings second study

38. A Million dollar question:How to come up with the story? Revised Revised Theory • Alternative • Explanations • Refine • procedures 2nd revised Hypothesis Third Findings third study Fourth study

39. A Million dollar question:How to come up with the story?

40. 100% support of hypothesis? Not necessary. Suppose you hypothesize that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D. If you find support for all of these, that’s just great.But what if C doesn’t always lead to D (everything else works fine)? Maybe there’s a moderating variable or some sort of condition that the existing literature stream has ignored so far? Maybe the relationship is more complex than expected?It is so frustrating to read an article where the C-to-D relationship doesn’t come out, and the authors don’t even try to elaborate. They’ve failed to capitalize on the most important, and surprising, finding of the whole study!”

41. Most experienced authors write the discussion and abstract last. • The order of the studies may not follow the chronological order. • The article should be accessible to general readers – the readers should be able to comprehend the main points of what you did and why. • Present a direct, clear, and liner story line; writing in English is different form writing in Chinese (In Chinese: usually you cite a large number of other people’s research before you assert your claim. In English: you state your claim first and substantiate it by citing only the most relevant literature.)

42. Steps of submission • Step 1: First submission All submission should follow the APA format closely; the format is not arbitrary. APApaper.pdf – a useful writing guide. sample_manuscript.pdf -- a template for a manuscript. style.pdf – a brief guide to writing style. • Submit via online portal of the journal: first_submission_letter.pdf – a sample cover letter

43. Step 2: Receiving first review • How long would it take for the reviews to come back? Step 3: Revise and Resubmit • How should I respond to the editor’s letter? What is the mannerism? What is the norm? second_submission_letter.pdf third_submission_letter.pdf Anonymous reviews – often the reviewers do it out of professionalism, sense of duty, and altruism. • Be persistent (very few articles are accepted with minor revision; revise and resubmit is already half way toward success!); be courteous and cooperative.

44. Scientific Peer Review, ca. 1945 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY

46. Break and Exercise

48. Major Elements in the Introduction • Objectives of the research: What are the general research questions? • Definition of the key terms and description of the theoretical model: What are the key new constructs in the research and how are they defined in the current research? What is the theory being proposed or applied in the research? • Research hypotheses: What are the major research hypotheses in the research? • Rationale of the hypotheses: Why did the researchers make these predictions? • Significance of the research: Why is it important to research these questions? • Overview of the studies: How does each of the studies contribute to the research objectives?

49. Definitions and Theory • Coherent – • Affords Clear Testable Predictions • Simple – • Minimally sufficient to set up the research hypotheses – • Remember: If you say it, you must prove it. • Exact – • specify the range of applicability

50. Research hypotheses • 1. Use the theory you proposed to justify your hypotheses! • 2. Common mistakes: • insufficient articulation • No explanations between the theory and the hypotheses. • There are several possible mechanisms for the hypothesis • Run additional studies to identify the specific mechanism(s). • Do not hypothesize a null effect – • WRONG: If my theory is correct, there should be no differences between the experimental and control conditions (or no correlations between the IV and the DV).