3
$\begingroup$

A good friend of mine is a clinical psychologist. She has been in practice for more then 25 years and has provided psychological help to people for a variety of issues.

One of her specialities is ADHD. She has created what cognitive psychologists call a "process model" (ie flow chart model; see Cognitive Psychology by Goldstein for definition) for how ADHD could work as well as solutions for how to correct it based on her expect experience with her patients. She thus helps people successfully adapt to having the disorder by training them using her model.

All she has at the moment is a model, but she feels very confident publishing this model could help other since it has been successful in her clinical work.

She is capable of organizing these ideas into arguments suitable for academic discourse and likely could also find peers to help edit her work. But she must find a journal that would be interested in publishing her model.

I myself do not know much about publishing in psychology and am more familiar with biology and physics. However, from talking to my physicist friends, I have learned there are a lot of changes going on in how articles are published and correspondingly what opportunities are available. She has not considered publishing until recently (last few years) and is trying to get a better sense of what avenues would be appropriate / sensible.

My Question:

What kind of journal might be suitable for my friend to attempt to submit to?

Note:

The main purpose of this question is to (1) get more information about trends in how publishing works in psychology journals and (2) to get information specifically about what cognitive psychology journals (specifically those who accept process models) look for in accepting papers. Obviously, it will vary a lot but I just want some starting food for thought. I am not primarily looking for advice but for general information. Any advice is welcome however. I just provided this note in an attempt to ensure it is on topic and not too broad so its useful for others too.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is the model based on her clinical observations alone, or is it also based on the ADHD literature? Is there an evidence base for the model's utility in clinical practice? $\endgroup$ – mrt Apr 1 '15 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ It's based on both I believe. But define evidence base. This is part of what she is confused about. Since journals vary in what kinds of evidence they demand, it would be helpful to know what is required to make an article credible. That is part of what she is confused about. $\endgroup$ – Stan Shunpike Apr 1 '15 at 23:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One can generally advance a new model based on a review of the literature. In her manuscript, she might (1) review the relevant ADHD literature, (2) review relevant ADHD models, and (3) propose a new model that is based on (1) and overcomes limitations of the models in (2). She can also suggest how the model might be employed in clinical practice, and use anecdotal evidence mixed with scientific evidence from the literature to back this up. Without some kind of clinical trial(s) (as an evidence base), it's difficult to talk about the efficacy/effectiveness of her therapy. $\endgroup$ – mrt Apr 1 '15 at 23:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Regarding evidence base: a key issue is whether she will be reporting the results of systematic data collection or anectodal observations. If she has consistent clinical notes, she could do a systematic retroactive data analysis (as in systematic chart reviews in medical research). More generally, clinical psychology journals (esp. those focusing on pediatric or developmental psychopathology or neuropsychology) will probably be more receptive to this kind of work than cognitive psychology journals. $\endgroup$ – Dan M. Apr 2 '15 at 1:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StevenJeuris I posted them as an answer. Does it look okay? $\endgroup$ – Stan Shunpike Apr 3 '15 at 15:34
2
$\begingroup$

(note: quotes are from useful comments on the question)

"I think clinical psychology journals would be her best option either way. Without new data, comments from others about reviewing existing models and data are even more critical. Unfairly, scientists often don't like new theories or models being proposed by people without a scientific track record, so I would recommend a journal with double-blind review, so her ideas can be evaluated on their merits and not on her name recognition." -- DanM

With regard to a paper on ADHD in particular,

"One can generally advance a new model based on a review of the literature. In her manuscript, she might (1) review the relevant ADHD literature, (2) review relevant ADHD models, and (3) propose a new model that is based on (1) and overcomes limitations of the models in (2). She can also suggest how the model might be employed in clinical practice, and use anecdotal evidence mixed with scientific evidence from the literature to back this up. Without some kind of clinical trial(s) (as an evidence base), it's difficult to talk about the efficacy/effectiveness of her therapy." -- mrt

If she writes the kind of article requiring evidence, then her evidence should be something along the lines of this:

"Regarding evidence base: a key issue is whether she will be reporting the results of systematic data collection or anectodal observations. If she has consistent clinical notes, she could do a systematic retroactive data analysis (as in systematic chart reviews in medical research). More generally, clinical psychology journals (esp. those focusing on pediatric or developmental psychopathology or neuropsychology) will probably be more receptive to this kind of work than cognitive psychology journals." -- DanM

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.