Message from the Editor

When I took over the office of Editor-in-Chief of European Psychologist in January 2004, I committed myself to maintaining the excellent start given to the journal by its Founding Editor, Kurt Pawlik, but also to building on that success and to bringing European Psychologist into line with other highly cited journals in the field, to extend its outreach and visibility, and to enhance its reputation as a desirable outlet for first quality research. I wanted to do this together with the entire team of Associate Editors while maintaining the journal’s special mission, namely, to be the English-language voice of psychological science in Europe, to integrate across all specializations in psychology, and to provide a general platform for communication and cooperation among psychologists throughout Europe and worldwide. This was not going to be easy as in some ways these aims are somewhat opposed to each another. For example, it is much easier for a specialized journal to become the place to publish than it is for a broad, multidisciplinary publication, such as European Psychologist, to attract the outstanding authors and the numbers of submissions necessary to achieve what I wanted for the journal. I also knew that there was not all the time in the world – as with most scientific journals, editors are engaged for a specific time span, and here it was a maximum of 6 years.

When I look back over the past years, I think I can safely say we have done well, and that the vast majority of my initial aims have been realized. In particular, I am proud of our achievements with regard to the impact factor. As I am sure you are aware, the impact factor is generally taken to be a measure of a journal’s standing and quality – the higher the impact factor, the better. Certainly to have a good impact factor is important for a journal’s reputation and its chances of receiving quality submissions. The journal received its first ever impact factor (IF) in 2005 (for 2004) – this was 0.691, based on contributions accepted prior to my editorship. We were then able to achieve a significant increase over a short period, so that the IF for 2006 (received in 2007) was quite spectacular, being 1.189. This was highly significant – having an IF greater than 1 put European Psychologist into the rather small group of journals that count in tenure evaluations of scientists as preferred outlets for publications. Although the IF for 2007 slipped a little to 1.105, it nevertheless remained over 1 and kept EP in this prestigious group. The great news came this year when we received the IF for 2008 and learned that it had risen again to an extremely respectable 1.482!

While a journal’s impact factor is an important external measure of its success, we also have internal evidence that helps us to see whether editorial policy is working or not. A very basic indicator is the number of actual submissions, and here again I am very happy to say that during the past 6 years this has gone from strength to strength. Since 2004, the first full year of my editorship, submissions have increased steadily so that numbers for 2008 were more than twice those with which we started. Another measure of a journal’s success, and one closely related to the number of submissions, is the rate at which articles are accepted or rejected, whereby a high reject rate is taken to be indicative of a journal’s quality. We now have an accept/reject rate of approximately 30%/70%, which also testifies to the positive development of the journal. Although even higher rejection rates are reported by some other journals, I see our figure as an indication of the overall good quality of initial submissions.

In any enterprise, however, it is the experience of the customer that is of paramount importance, and a scientific journal is no exception. Our customers come in two groups – authors and readers (without either there would be no journal) and I have kept the welfare of both firmly in mind during the past 6 years. The offer to authors submitting to European Psychologist is that they will receive an editorial decision within 60–90 days of receipt of their manuscript. Not only has this target been easily met throughout this editorship, the actual lead time (i.e., the number of days from submission to an editorial decision) has been reduced steadily so that in 2008 the average time for all decisions (accept, reject, revise, and resubmit) following submission or resubmission was just 48 days. This is all the more impressive given our editorial policy of extensive peer review for all submissions (the average number of reviews obtained for each paper in 2008 was 2.4) and of giving manuscripts maximum review chances.

With regard to readers, our main obligation is, of course, to offer articles of the highest level of scientific rigor, on a wide variety of topics, and on those of particular current interest. One way we can see whether what is published in European Psychologist is what readers want is to monitor the frequency with which articles are downloaded from web-based resources1, taking the obvious stance that the most popular articles will be downloaded more often than those of less current interest. This information, which is supplied by our publishers, shows that special section articles particularly attract readers. For example, the statistics for the top 100 European Psychologist article downloads from the PsycARTICLES full-text database in 2007 show that of the first 10 articles listed, 5 were from the special section on “Intimate Partner Violence and Children” guest-edited by Alytia E. Levendosky, G. Anne Bogat, and Alexander von Eye, and published in issue 1 of that year (Levendosky, Bogat, & von Eye, 2007). Indeed, all contributions to this special section appear within the top 30 articles.

Finally, with regard to services to authors and readers, I want to mention a new initiative by our publishers. In the past, it has sometime been the case that papers, once accepted for publication, have had to wait longer than I would have liked before appearing in print. Now, thanks to the “Advance Articles” program, papers that have been accepted for publication in the journal will be published online ahead of print publication and ahead of being assigned to a particular issue, in a fully citable format – i.e., with a DOI. I am very happy that this extremely useful service has been agreed upon, and I’m sure it will prove to be highly popular with all concerned. It will come into force starting in January 2010.

Turning to special sections, all journals are interested in special issues or special sections on a hot topic of scientific enquiry presented in a comprehensive and cohesive way, and they are also interested in state-of-the-art reviews by experts in the field, especially where there is not too narrow a focus. In Volume 14, the last of my term as Editor-in-Chief, we have had two special sections that really do fulfill both aims. The first one on “Theory-Based Approaches to Stress and Coping” was guest-edited by Jochen P. Ziegelmann and Sonia Lippke, and published in issue 1 of this year (Ziegelmann & Lippke, 2009). Contributions to this special section address the topic of explanatory mechanisms in the domain of stress and coping and, as spelled out in a commentary by Folkman (2009), all 6 papers underscore the role of contextual determinants, such as interpersonal convoys, and appraisal processes. Moreover, taken as a whole, the contributions illuminate the necessity for correlational and experimental research to complement each other in order to find solid ground for the planning of interventions. A case in point is the conceptual paper by Leipold and Greve (2009) concerning the role of coping in episodes for the regulation of higher-order developmental processes.

A special section on “Ambulatory Assessment” was guest-edited by Ulrich W. Ebner-Priemer, Thomas Kubiak, and Kurt Pawlik, and published in issue 2 of this year (Ebner-Priemer, Kubiak, & Pawlik, 2009). It deals with a new method mix promising ecological validity. Beyond memory-dependent questionnaires and potentially sterile laboratory settings, the use of in-field methods is recommended, targeting the ongoing behavior, physiology, experience, and environmental aspects of behavior in naturalistic settings. The papers provide reviews of the type and scope of such methods, with special reference to electronic devices, in research on life-span development, clinical psychology, work and organizational psychology, and biological psychology. The paper by Hoppmann and Riediger (2009), for instance, shows the multitude of approaches that address the within-person variability of developmental processes as the actual core of the discipline, as well as demonstrating how ambulatory assessments help to achieve a better balance between internal and external validity.

What else happened in 2009? Space allows only for a few examples. Salmela-Aro et al. (2009) used a genetically sensitive design to distinguish genetic and environmental sources for variation in a large range of personal goals in a sample of aging women. The results demonstrate that some goals are highly genetically charged (e.g., independent living), whereas others show moderate shared environmental influences (e.g., care for others). Cultural activities, however, revealed influence of the nonshared environment only, thus indicating development preferences are formed as part of an emerging individual lifestyle.

Pinquart, Silbereisen, and Körner (2009) addressed strains related to social change due to political transformation and globalization in postunification Germany and found, as expected, a negative relationship with well-being. A closer look, however, shows that the size of this relationship effect was moderated by the economic prosperity of the region people live in. In economically challenged regions the effect was almost nil, whereas in prosperous regions well-being appeared really hampered by such strains. Behind this “ecological programming” of the relationship between strains and well-being appear to be attribution processes (to societal failure rather than individual causes) and face-saving comparisons with others in similar circumstances. The paper nicely complements the special section on coping.

A scientific journal is also a forum for a discipline’s outreach to society and political decision makers. And in this regard I am proud that European Psychologist, together with other international journals, was asked to publish the “Berlin Declaration on the Quality of Life for Older Adults: Closing the Gap between Scientific Knowledge and Intervention,” co-authored by nine international experts in human development and aging (Fernandez-Ballesteros et al., 2009). In essence, the Declaration summarizes the large body of knowledge concerning the possibilities to activate the potential of older adults, to promote their competence, autonomous functioning and health, and to strengthen the family. Beyond further research needs, the Declaration stresses the need for training programs for professionals and researchers working with older adults.

European Psychologist is the official organ of the European Federation of Psychologists Association (EFPA), and as such we are naturally interested in the European congresses. It has become a tradition that keynote speakers submit their papers for review in an updated form. In 2009 this was, for example, the case with a keynote by Lars-Göran Nilsson, which was transformed into a contribution on “APOE and Lipid Level Synergy Effects on Declarative Memory Functioning in Adulthood” by Sternäng, Wahlin, Adolfsson, Sleegers, Van Broeckhoven, and Nilsson (2009). The paper shows with longitudinal data that certain combinations of apolipoprotein E (APOE) and lipid levels increase the risk of cognitive decline in adults, with regard to episodic and semantic memory alike. As this research is paradigmatic for the new synthesis between psychology biology, I thought the paper deserved a particular mention.

All in all, as I reflect on the past 6 years – on how the journal was in 2004 and how it is now – I think I can say we have done a good job. There are, of course, areas where I would like to have done more. For example, when we look geographically at the source of 2008 submissions (based on the country of affiliation of the first author), it is evident that the majority stem from Europe, with some from North America and Asia, very few from Africa, and none from South or Central America. Although this may not come as a surprise, I would like to see a broader base for submissions to European Psychologist, especially in light of concerns expressed recently about the extent to which psychological research published in North America focuses too narrowly on research in that region and on research that utilizes samples drawn from a very narrow section of the North American population (Arnett, 2009). It is suggested that this is not representative and leads to an understanding of psychology that is incomplete and does not adequately represent humanity.

Finally, I need to acknowledge the support I have received over the past 6 years. As with all organizations, while the head might have a vision and great ideas, it takes a good team to turn it into reality. I have been very lucky here and have had the support of some fantastic Associate Editors (Norman Anderson, Lars Bäckman, Tim Brennen, Gian Vittorio Caprara, Anastasia Efklides, and Katariina Salmela-Aro), of a great Editorial Board, and of a dedicated and hard-working editorial office (Verona Christmas-Best and Katrin Müller) and, of course, of a forward-thinking and amenable publisher with an equally committed staff. I have also had the help and support of many wonderful guest editors who have worked tirelessly to bring our readers special sections on “hot” topics comprising papers of the highest caliber. I would especially like to thank all authors who have submitted to the journal (whether ultimately successful or not) and particularly those who have been loyal contributors and used the journal as an outlet for their work on several occasions. Of course, I must not forget to say thank you to the countless number of fellow scientists who have given their precious time to – dare I say it – “do their duty” and review the work of their peers, and to those colleagues who have written commentaries on articles, as well as to the authors of those articles for engaging in a published debate on their work. I am also indebted to all who work behind the scenes, overseeing the manuscript-handling process, chasing the more tardy and recalcitrant of our reviewers, and just generally keeping the machinery working. My gratitude also goes to our publishers for listening to my demands and for meeting many of them, and to EFPA and its publication committee, with whom we liaised over annual reports and other journal-related issues, for their support, especially for making space and time available at the biennial European Congress of Psychology for various European Psychologist events.

Finally, I should like to welcome Alexander Grob of Basel University, Switzerland, who takes over as Editor-in-Chief on January 1, 2010. I know I am handing over the journal in very good shape, and I know it will be in very capable hands for the coming years. I wish him and his team all the very best for the future.