Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP), 1998-2002: Editor's Vale Dictum

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. 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 8½-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. 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. 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. Description of Published Papers, Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 1998-2002 Description of Published Papers, Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 1998-2002 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. Special Series, Issues, and Sections, Journal of Pediatric Psychology (1998-2002) Special Series, Issues, and Sections, Journal of Pediatric Psychology (1998-2002) 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 related to chronic illness. data an increase over that by La Greca and (1992) of In data from 1998-2002 are with La Greca's (1997) for The data a and more specific focus on chronic illness. of Papers Published in of Papers of Papers Published in of Papers some of the areas in which La Greca (1997) were not to the An in which growth is seen during the past 5 years to studies of health and on using data from children in or in primary papers are reflecting papers in the special issue on primary care, of and health that some of the papers as by La Greca these there appears to have been an increase over the past 5 years. Although few papers were published that on many papers the in In addition to we the special issue on to the large number of submissions related to health the only special issue that was but not a issue was related to the Jack Finney, an associate with expertise in papers in this but few were submitted. The low is difficult to the of and the of our work to health in It the minority of researchers as pediatric JPP published papers that from through young from 1998-2002 for major developmental were as children and young included across developmental there is that the journal research on children of with a across developmental is the of with It is not for example, to ranging in from 2 or 6 to years and some as as to years. While this in be to some to the low of many pediatric is to note that Roberts (1992) a years data not the in which many for and their data the of focus on developmental in pediatric a that be through and of to developmental Our of developmental in health and will be our research to developmental issues. Our two special issues to an important step in that with One of the major initiatives during this was to increase the of JPP within the medical particularly with to In order to I three to the Editorial Board and to a member of the board for many years. and also the Editorial Board. One by which we to increase was with a special issue on primary care, by the pediatric psychology research is to primary across many activities and and pediatric psychologists are in primary than in chronic and activities. The percentage of papers with ranged from to across the there is data from prior years. In general, most are and many have published with With regard to the of the authors, the number are from in medical with a consistent over the 5 years in psychology within A percentage has a in another of academic or in a research two were of an academic data are consistent with those of and Roberts and Roberts focus for JPP was to increase international For the time, we an Associate Editor of the Christine in We also from the to the Editorial Board and more ad hoc reviewers from the and Our special issue on in Pediatric Psychology, by and Christine Eiser, includes papers from areas of the that have been as and The majority of papers to be from in the the of the of papers across the 5 years were from the The number from Other from which two or more papers were published were the the and One paper each was published from and In research conducted by psychologists in the was in studies of pediatric in and A major has been made during the past 5 years to increase JPP's focus on intervention. The importance of establishing the scientific for interventions in pediatric psychology is within our The of a survey of members of for example, that to was the most highly ranked of importance to the future of the field & Roberts, and for from Within clinical psychology more have a major focus of research. Our scientific tradition and our in medical an for how our interventions In data-based is and on scientific are with our medical is that we the of clinical and in The by and other have the importance of that pediatric psychology interventions are and Despite the importance of research on interventions in pediatric psychology, few papers have been published in JPP. Roberts (1992) that of papers published from to on or efforts to the or of a or In a of papers published in the journal from to a percentage was for & Roberts, was the of of journal articles to clinical during these years In years, La Greca noted that the number of papers on increased during editorial over those published The JPP to in pediatric psychology was the series of 11 papers on Empirically Supported Treatments in Pediatric Psychology, by Anthony The specific topics are in the focus in pediatric psychology on chronic and The reviews the general established for in clinical psychology but important to the of in pediatric psychology and the low of most pediatric in the series papers have been very well received and have provided thoughtful scientific of data related to common areas of Commentaries with each of the articles in the series were in order to highlight issues on each and to for future research and On a more further suggested that the studies in the series often issues related to & provided a of the the importance of attention to clinical and and in establishing for The related to was another special issue, on in Pediatric Psychology, by and Kathleen This special issue provides a to the articles in that the is on the clinical and of and of changes that to and is essential and a process that scientific and clinical The articles in this special issue of evaluation research in pediatric psychology as well as studies and a case The number of empirical research reports on low in JPP. We published papers from 1998 to 2002 that an intervention. of these were published as the were as in the It is to note that 9 of studies are clinical widely to be the most of of the reports our related to and interventions for and of children with chronic Published in JPP 1998 to 2002 Published in JPP 1998 to 2002 In addition to these reports of we also published other papers, including that data that are important and for For types of papers, most were to their data to we published two papers that clinical that we hope will for future research Kazak, & in the With the growth of research in pediatric psychology, are but few and of are The special issue on provides thoughtful and of important and used and issues as to and developmental issues, and and We hope that the papers in this will be widely as our and there has been growth in clinical research over the past 5 years, as well as parallel related to the of and and of the research in research are and have made for to the research that we as pediatric psychologists within the broader of clinical research in medicine. In order to in JPP with regard to some of these I the Over time, the importance of for research has with the changes in health during the psychologists important to to their particularly for those in medical from the of the with its highly competitive review process and to with regard to and issues. In terms of papers that support and those that from an of the of papers a and noted this to be from an Roberts (1992) that of papers published from to difficult to have been in some support for research papers is consistent and with a amount of research published in JPP. research is to in through the to studies at more than one in order to larger and more The for is very common in the of our I that of empirical papers published from 1998 to 2002 were on data from more than one are data from previous years. The data to that data from larger studies are submitted to JPP. and At the most is that research be reviewed and approved by at For research and the of how should be is Although provided of with the that research has and approved is of were but increased over the 5 years, from to (Table I). This change was in to my of this and for this information during of and also increased over the from to data from the 1997 of JPP, that of articles and noted This rate with data that presented from other pediatric psychology and journals. is in this there are two and should be indicates that the has been reviewed and that the research has been not that was The for example, that is not for a particular that research is conducted within a particular is also important to that and were in way that pediatric psychologists of with research They however, the that we information that will our of and with important in and research the of Pediatric Psychology. The journal published its in 2000, the year that the became a of the these I the history of JPP (Kazak, The the steady growth and of the in terms of of papers and in the of the most on empirical research related to pediatric chronic illness. most was the opportunity to on the stability of the journal and its to and over a to the of JPP and the field of pediatric psychology, I invited pediatric psychologists to articles reflecting on their and evolution in the field and this series in Pediatric hope in publishing these papers and was to the evolution and of the I that the articles be helpful to the of that have in in our and that be to those with and We in an Over the course of my editorial term, I have more to the in which JPP the of children and families that we serve in terms of their and The JPP editorial and board a with regard to This was but by editorial for highly pediatric of is an important of a journal At the time, is essential that attention be to to the by in academic psychology In terms of journal data from journals in editors, associate editors, and reviewers For example, of journals were by in 2000 and of associate editors were JPP has appeared to have a more editorial than is in our We also had of from 1998 to ranging from to is a numbers of authors. Roberts and that in there were data included with an increase to in While is to this to the number of degrees in psychology, is comparisons with other in with at higher academic and in terms of Although these are issues, is to that research reports by as are published in JPP, as in highly competitive peer-reviewed journals are for academic With to we maintained a consistent nearly of and over this (Table I). The majority of papers data describing the and ethnic of and also some of data related to (Table I). In general, the majority of were although was seen in nearly be on and The special issue on ethnic minority and families in pediatric psychology a large number of and as a these papers important data on ethnic minority and their in terms of chronic and health of the papers published from 1998 to 2002 indicates that of data from members and studies that children with health that health The most common of data via or from data from more than one were published, was and to although many included of and other A number of studies included data from and with two papers on the by in criticism of the of a in pediatric The of the of research in JPP is not on this work at the of pediatric and the for research that pediatric in is It is to summarize 5 years of editing in a While that the data and presented in this paper are to general readers to only editors of the editorial I a few general is the of JPP as a scientific It is a highly competitive journal that has and to be the top journal in its The data presented in this should be helpful in that papers in this journal are as quality I hope that will also to to their papers to JPP. The major of JPP is pediatric chronic illness. This has been the history of the but be more The overall amount of quality work in chronic has It also be the case that the chronic course of more pediatric has been with an increase in number of issues per chronic most Although this summarized work that was there was to in terms of those accepted submitted by The increase in number of papers on data from of children and also indicates that JPP is publishing work that our of health and illness. One issue JPP future The journal is highly competitive and a specific It is the of for a subset of psychologists and for areas of should this and some areas of related work are and a large number of quality papers are is for example, to issues. research on families and other that be Over the next years, an increase in the number of papers related to be and researchers of psychology not their work to as a we the opportunity to publish a subset of papers that are more and that a broader is to the and intended in these a broader of work be with a be issue of JPP on the efforts of many I have been as Editor to have worked with an of associate editors, a and thoughtful editorial and many and ad hoc reviewers. The of these colleagues is in terms of the papers, writing and reviews, and reviews decision the the editorial process has been by the efforts of a amount of and helped that reviews and were in a timely and worked to our We have also had with the editorial at Oxford University and the support of the of of the which have our to a quality journal. I very to have JPP and to the of in our In I only that an is not as as many to The the for to an I to La Greca, Lemanek, and Roberts for their on a of this