A Goodbye, a Welcome, and a Look Ahead
It is just one year ago that Rolf van Dick (2015) reviewed recent developments at the Journal of Personnel Psychology (JPP) and announced a number of changes, including the transition in the role of editor-in-chief. One of the many reasons I have to be grateful to Rolf is that his farewell editorial saves me from having to describe these developments and changes in great detail again. Nevertheless, reasons enough remain for me to write another editorial after such a short period of time.
First, I believe I can speak in the name of all readers, authors, reviewers, and board members, and of the team of editors and production staff, when I express my deep thanks to Rolf for his tremendous achievements as this journal’s editor-in-chief over the past eight years. In the 2 years I have now served JPP as an associate editor, I have not only been impressed with what he has achieved but no less with how he has made things happen in consistently fair, warmhearted, and respectful interaction with all stakeholders of the journal. I extend my big thank you to Johannes Ullrich and Diana Boer, who during Rolf’s term built congenial dyads with him as managing editors, a role whose value perhaps only editors-in-chief can appraise accurately. If JPP is now “recognized as a decent journal among authors around the globe,” as Rolf put it quite modestly (Van Dick, 2015, p. 1), this success has essentially been achieved by this team of editors. Fortunately, both Rolf and Diana have agreed to continue their service to the journal by joining the editorial board.
Secondly, I would like to introduce Petra Gelléri as Diana’s successor as managing editor. Together with the team of associate editors, who have fortunately all agreed to stay on board, and the people at Hogrefe, Petra, and I will try to continue the work of the outgoing editors. We are well aware how big the footprints are we try to step in, but we promise to do our best.
Finally, while I do not need to reiterate recent developments at JPP Rolf already wrote about in his latest editorial, a few further changes since then are worth mentioning.
Initiatives for Improving the Trustworthiness of Applied Psychological Research
One issue discussed by Rolf (Van Dick, 2015) that I would like to mention again is JPP’s continued dedication to recent collaborative efforts to improve the trustworthiness of psychological research. Sadly enough, applied psychology in general and personnel psychology in particular, JPP’s focal areas, have not always appeared quite at the forefront of this movement. Fortunately, though, there are a number of signs indicating that the relatively ponderous development of our field in this respect is now beginning to gain momentum. The team at JPP will try to intensify this journal’s efforts in taking an active role in the movement toward improving the reliability and trustworthiness of applied psychological research. Along these lines, JPP introduces three specific but related initiatives, all of which take effect immediately.
Registered Reports
As previously announced (Van Dick, 2015), JPP now joins the growing number of journals in a range of empirical sciences accepting submissions in the format of Registered Reports. This format involves a two-stage review process. At Stage 1, authors submit a detailed proposal including Introduction and Method sections before they conduct their research, which is reviewed for conceptual and methodological rigor. Pending approval at Stage 1, the registered research is then conducted as planned and a full paper is prepared for Stage 2 review. At this final stage, the full paper is reviewed for adherence to the approved plan and for adequate presentation and discussion of results, but ultimate acceptance does not depend on outcomes such as observed support for hypotheses or effect sizes.
Hybrid Registered Reports
In addition to Registered Reports, JPP also introduces the related but even newer format of Hybrid Registered Reports in a joint initiative with a number of renowned journals specifically from the fields of applied psychology and organizational behavior. This format differs from that of “traditional” Registered Reports in that Hybrid Registered Reports present research that has already been conducted before Stage 1 submission. Hence, the review process for Hybrid Registered Reports can be much shorter and more commensurate with the traditional approach of preparing elaborate papers only after having collected the data. Analogous to Registered Reports, however, authors of Hybrid Registered Reports submit only the Introduction and Method sections of their paper at Stage 1. If these parts of the paper are accepted in principle, there is a very high chance of ultimate success for the full paper at Stage 2. Again, this warrants that acceptance for publication depends on the rigor of underlying theory and methods, but not on the results. Authors can now find new separate submission categories for Registered and Hybrid Registered Reports in JPP’s electronic submission portal at www.editorialmanager.com/jppsy, along with detailed guidelines for both new formats on the journal’s website at www.hogrefe.com/journals/jpp.
Replications
JPP now also explicitly welcomes replications of previous research. Recently, a group of researchers initiated and presented a joint effort to study the replicability of psychological research independent of outcomes and, therefore, independent of potential publication bias (Open Science Collaboration, 2012, 2015). Yet, this collaborative initiative was almost exclusively restricted to experimental research in basic disciplines of psychology. Also, studies conducted in this context are explicitly restricted to replications using the exact same methods as the original published research (direct replications). At JPP, we try to extend these ideas to applied topics and to nonexperimental designs more common in applied settings, although replications of experiments within the scope of JPP are also welcome. Moreover, we invite not only exact (direct) replications of previous research but may also accept studies attempting to replicate previous findings with more rigorous methods (advanced replications; e.g., multiple sources, designs allowing for causal inferences, more rigorous sampling, etc.), as well as combinations of both types of replications. Apart from these specific differences, however, JPP’s present initiative shares with that of the Open Science Collaboration the core element that chances of publication success should not depend on outcomes. Probably the best way to guarantee this is that the team of reviewers decides on acceptance without knowing (or even being able to guess) the outcome. Therefore, JPP accepts replication studies only in the formats of either Registered Reports or Hybrid Registered Reports. Specifics regarding replications are included in the guidelines for these two submission formats.
Awards for Outstanding Achievements as Authors and Reviewers
Another new development I am happy to announce is that, starting with the present volume, JPP will establish two annual awards for outstanding achievements in different roles. First, outstanding contributions by authors will be recognized by an annual Best Paper Award. Yet authorship, at least authorship of successful submissions, is inherently rewarding even if there were no additional recognition or incentive. The truly unsung heroes in the process of publishing research are the anonymous external reviewers, who often contribute substantially to the quality of the final product without being recognized at all. In an attempt to change this at least in a few of the most deserved cases, JPP will also distinguish two outstandingly helpful reviewers with its annual Best Reviewer Award. A committee composed of members of the editorial team will nominate and select candidates for both awards. Winners will be recognized in one printed issue and on the journal’s website. Although both awards are immaterial in principle, Hogrefe has kindly offered award winners a small tangible gift from its program.
New Members of the Editorial Board
Finally, I am proud and happy to announce that JPP’s editorial board continues to grow in a number of respects, including not only quantity, but also internationality, scope of expertise, and reputation. With the present issue, I warmly welcome the following scholars to our editorial board (in alphabetical order):
Mike Ashton (Canada)
Diana Boer (Germany)
Filip De Fruyt (Belgium)
Deanne den Hartog (The Netherlands)
Peter Harms (USA)
Franciska Krings (Switzerland)
Jonas Lang (Belgium)
Kibeom Lee (Canada)
Bertolt Meyer (Germany)
Lisa Penney (USA)
Ann Marie Ryan (USA)
Paul R. Sackett (USA)
Klaus J. Templer (Singapore)
Robert Tett (USA)
Rolf van Dick (Germany)
Ingo Zettler (Denmark)
It seems to me that exciting times lie ahead of JPP and its team of contributors serving the journal in different roles. I look forward to sharing this experience with our readers and with everybody interested in the future of the journal and the topics it deals with. Thank you for your ongoing support.
References
. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657–660. doi: 10.1177/1745691612462588
. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716
(2015). Registered reports, advance articles online, and the way ahead [Editorial]. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14, 1–3. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000140
