I am honored to assume the editorship of Perspectives on Psychological Science (PPS). I presented my mission for the journal in a previous interview in the December 2014 issue of the APS Observer (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/december-14/sternberg-is-new-editor-of-perspectives-on-psychological-science.html). Here, I describe how you can decide whether PPS is an appropriate outlet for an article you have written.
“Where am I going to send this article anyway?” That’s usually the first question I ask myself when I start writing a journal article. (If the article has been especially painful to write, sometimes, the blank space between “this” and “article” is occupied by an expletive.) As the new Editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science, I am eager to receive submissions from you. I would like to help you decide whether PPS might be the answer to that pesky “Where should I submit it?” question. Here’s a checklist of sorts that may help you decide whether to submit to PPS.
Relevance to PPS. Some journals take only a very specific kind of article, such as theory papers or literature reviews. In contrast, PPS publishes a variety of articles including, but not limited to, (a) theory papers, (b) literature reviews, including meta-analyses, (c) articles presenting a perspective on a current or potential future issue in psychological science, (d) methods papers, (e) historical reviews, (f) surveys, (g) book reviews, (h) reviews of contributions in other media, (i) forward-thinking articles (which are short conceptual papers that focus on new, potentially generative ideas emanating from empirical work that is not yet complete or that is still under development), (j) registered replication reports, (k) field critiques, (l) short humorous pieces, (m) biographical and autobiographical pieces, and (n) controversial author-submitted symposia about an issue in the field of psychological science. Sometimes, I may, with the permission of the author(s) of an article, create a symposium based on a submission, seeking one or more commentaries from scientists with diverse points of view. Adversarial collaborations—in which investigators with differing points of view collaborate—are particularly welcome. (Original empirical reports typically are submitted to Psychological Science.) A complete list of what we publish can be found at http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/perspectives/pps-submissions.
If you are in doubt about whether an article is appropriate for PPS, I encourage you to submit an article proposal through the PPS portal at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pps. I typically act on these proposals within a week or so, thereby quickly giving the submitter an idea of whether a potential submission might fit our journal. The proposal need be only 3–5 double-spaced pages.
Interest to a broad cross-section of readers. Psychological scientists of all kinds read PPS. Is your article going to be visible and appeal to a broad cross-section of readers? Have you written it in a way that is relatively jargon-free and accessible to psychological scientists whose interests may be very different from your own? You might ask someone outside your field to read and comment on it. Have you illustrated abstract arguments with concrete examples? Not all submissions will have practical implications, but if there are any, it helps engage readers if you point them out.
Quality. All of us (including me!) produce work that varies in quality. Please ask yourself—or, better yet, ask some critical colleagues—whether your article represents your best work. If so, please do consider PPS as an outlet. Of course, quality can be an elusive construct. There are three factors you can consider in deciding whether to submit a piece:
Potential impact. Are you addressing a reasonably big question about an important problem to the field of psychological science? Is this article going to make a real difference to the field?
Analysis. Is your analysis of the problem cogent? Is the analysis balanced—acknowledging weaknesses as well as touting strengths? Is your article logical, and is it well organized?
Creativity. Does your article in some way break new ground? Does it “stir the pot” or somehow defy entrenched beliefs? Not every submission will be a “field changer,” but it helps if you have something really new and different to say.
Length. We do not have a specific length restriction; however, we do consider length in our evaluation. The question is whether the length is commensurate with the level of contribution of the work.
Telling a story. Is the problem you address well stated? Does the article have a clear story to tell? If the article is a literature review, does it have a clear thesis? Regardless of article type, there should be a clear take-home message.
In return for your submission, we wish to assure you of (a) careful consideration of your submission, (b) the promptest turn-around time we can manage, (c) thoughtful selection of reviewers (some of whom you can suggest), and (d) courtesy. In some cases, I will desk-reject articles without external review if it is clear they are inappropriate for the journal. That process saves both you and reviewers time that better could be spent in other pursuits.
Thank you for reading PPS and for considering us as a possible outlet for your work. I am honored to take on the position of Editor and to have you as a reader and potential submitter.
I am fortunate to have working with me superb associate editors: Brad Bushman, Christian Fiebach, Katherine Kinzler, and Simine Vazire for regular submissions; Alison Ledgerwood for methods submissions; and Dan Simons and Alex Holcombe (working also with Simine Vazire) for registered replication reports. We also have excellent advisory and consulting editors who serve the journal with great skill and enthusiasm. We are lucky to have a wonderful and dedicated editorial team at APS: Annie Hill, Torrance Gloss, and Amy Drew.
Ed Diener and Barbara Spellman, the first two Editors of this journal, have done an incredibly capable job of bringing PPS from nowhere to where it is today. I am humbled by the magnificent work they have done and can only hope to live up to the tradition they have established for the journal.
I look forward to working with you and to hearing your ideas. Please send your suggestions or comments to me at rsternberg@psychologicalscience.org. And please send your submissions—whether proposals or articles—to the PPS portal at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pps
