Law and Human Behavior

Brian Cutler, Incoming Editor

University of North Carolina Charlotte

 

 

In this article I discuss five issues associated with Law and Human Behavior and the changes readers may expect during my term as Editor.  The first is journal content, a traditional subject of editorial statements.  The second is changes in the process of editorial review.  Third, I have a few words to say about the impact of Law and Human Behavior.  The fourth topic is electronic access and how it is changing the way Law and Human Behavior is read.  Fifth, I want to inform you of an expected change to the format of the journal.

 

Diversifying the Content of LHB

 

Law and Human Behavior has an unusual status.  On the one hand, it is a publication of a psychological society.  On the other hand, it is by design open to scholarship in other related disciplines, such as law, criminal justice, criminology, social work, and sociology.  Although the mission of the journal is very broad (“multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process”), the content has historically been much more narrow.  Most of the content in the 1990s has been jury research, forensic issues, eyewitness testimony, and sentencing/incarceration issues (Wiener et al., 2002).  The homogeneity of the published research has been a concern of the last three editors of Law and Human Behavior (Roesch, 1990; Saks, 1986; Wiener, 1997).  Efforts to diversify the journal have met with some success.  For example, between 1992 and 1998, the number of articles about forensic issues increased from about 10% to 18% (Wiener et al., 2002).  Nevertheless, there is room for improvement.  During my term I will continue to encourage diversification with respect to three areas in particular.  First, in deference to the large number of forensic psychology practitioner members of AP-LS, I would like to see a greater representation of forensic psychological research, such as research on forensic assessment/evaluation, competencies, and risk assessment.  Toward this end, I have elected to appoint two well-established clinical/forensic researchers as Associate Editors (introduced below) to assist with encouraging high quality submissions and the review and decision-making process.  Second, I would like to see a greater representation of industrial-organizational psychology-law research on topics such as employment discrimination, sexual harassment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and affirmative action.  As a member of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, I intend to market Law and Human Behavior as an outlet for quality I-O research on law-related topics.  Third, I remain open to and am interested in contributions from other disciplines, such as criminal justice, criminology, social work, and sociology.  Ultimately, my goal is for Law and Human Behavior to retain its strong – but not exclusive -- emphasis on psychology-law content, but to represent the disciplines of psychology and the substantive areas of law more broadly.

 

            I do not wish to discourage submissions from research domains that are thought by some to be over-represented such as eyewitness memory or jury behavior, but I would like authors to remain mindful of the scope of the journal and submit research that addresses human behavior and laws, legal processes, and legal systems.  I am particularly interested in articles that break new ground, stimulate additional research, and/or have direct implications for policy or procedures.

 

            Like previous editors, I wish to emphasize my interest in maintaining and indeed improving the quality of research published in Law and Human Behavior.  The breadth of research methodologies employed in Law and Human Behavior articles makes sweeping statements of what constitutes “quality” difficult, but I will attempt to list some features of manuscripts that should fare well in the review process.  Successful manuscripts will have: (1) clearly articulated goals that serve to organize the introduction, method, results, and discussion sections; (2) clearly articulated and testable hypotheses; (3) well-documented methods that meet or exceed contemporary standards for high quality research; (4) appropriate descriptive and statistical analyses (complexity is not a virtue) with reports of effect-sizes for key significant and non-significant findings; (5) conclusions that follow from the data and previous research; and (6) analyses of research limitations that go beyond the obvious.  Successful manuscripts will also be brief and concise.

 

Special issues, which have been a regular feature of Law and Human Behavior, will become less common.  In its place, I intend to introduce a series of invited review articles.  Authors (individually or in small groups) will be asked to conduct comprehensive and balanced reviews of scholarly topics of contemporary interest to readers of Law and Human Behavior.  I am hoping that such reviews will be well-received, have impact, and bring heightened prestige to Law and Human Behavior and the authors.  I will publish adversarial forums on an as-needed basis.  If you have suggestions for topics for invited review articles, special issues, or adversarial forums, I would be delighted to hear from you.

 

Manuscript Review and Decision Making

 

            To compete successfully with other high-quality journals, Law and Human Behavior must be responsive to the needs of both authors and reviewers.  A main concern of authors is the time between submission and notification of editorial decisions.  Many authors are in a hurry and for good reasons.  The ticking tenure clock is unforgiving.  A probationary faculty member typically has five years to establish a publication record; she or he cannot afford to let many months pass while waiting for a review.  The investigator who has breakthrough findings concerning an issue of immediate importance likewise has little patience for delays in manuscript review.  If I cannot meet the needs of the authors by providing a review in a reasonable time period, the author will justifiably choose to submit his or her manuscripts elsewhere.  Given my quest to publish the highest quality law and human behavior research, I am committed to providing timely, high-quality feedback.

 

            Reviewers need to have a realistic expectation for workload, to know that their recommendations will be taken seriously, and to know that their time is well-spent.  I address workload issues of Editorial Board members and ad hoc reviewers below.  Although there will undoubtedly be times in which reviewer recommendations are not taken, reviewers may expect that their reviews and recommendations will figure prominently in the decision process.  I will endeavor to use the time of reviewers wisely by not sending them manuscripts that are not ready for review.  I will return such manuscripts to authors with an explanation and not put this burden on reviewers.

 

            My specific goal with respect to timely feedback is eight weeks from the date of submission to communication of my editorial decision.  Enhancing responsiveness requires commitments from all parties involved.  The Editor must agree to launch the review process early and to act on manuscripts once a complete set of reviews has been received.  Editorial Board members and ad hoc reviewers must agree to provide timely reviews.  Authors must agree to provide requested revisions within a reasonable time frame.  In my efforts to provide timely editorial decisions, I will adopt the following practices: (1) I will rely on Action Editors to assist with the evaluation process; (2) I will endeavor to carefully select and continually assess the work of the Editorial Board and ad hoc reviewers; (3) I will impose a firm timetable for reviews.  Let me elaborate on each point.

 

            Action Editors.  Law and Human Behavior is a victim of its own success.  The volume of manuscript submissions has steadily increased.  For example, Richard Wiener, the current Editor, received about 140 manuscripts in 2004, as compared to 130 in 2003.  In my view, the volume is too much for this – or most any – Editor.  In order to cope with the increasing editorial workload, and with the blessing of the AP-LS Publication Committee and Executive Committee, I have re-appointed one Associate Editor, Margaret Bull Kovera, and appointed two new Associate Editors, Patricia Zapf and Kirk Heilbrun, to serve as Associate Editors and to take action on manuscript submissions as “Action Editors.”  (I will serve as an Action Editor as well.)  The three Associate Editors are first-rate Psychology-Law scholars and are highly dedicated to their roles.  They have my full confidence.  Individual manuscripts will be assigned by me to an Action Editor.  The Action Editor will send manuscripts out for review, correspond with authors and reviewers, and recommend editorial decisions to me.  These Associate Editors are committed to facilitating reviews and providing feedback within 8 weeks.  This distribution of workload should facilitate timely review.  In addition to serving as Action Editors, my Associate Editors will participate in the marketing and administration of the journal.

 

            Editorial Board and Ad Hoc Reviewers.  The term of all current Editorial Board members expires December 31, 2005.  Re-appointments and new appointments will be made soon.  Appointment to the Law and Human Behavior Editorial Board is an honor, and with it comes responsibility.  I will ask each Editorial Board Member to accept an annual workload of about nine manuscripts per year (no more than one per month, and no more than one at a time) and to commit to providing high quality reviews in a timely fashion, that is, within one month from receipt.  Appointments to the Editorial Board will be annual with the expectation of renewal throughout my five-year term in exchange for quality and timely service to Law and Human Behavior.  Ad hoc reviewers can expect one to three manuscripts per year and will likewise be asked to commit to providing quality reviews within one month.  Ad hoc reviewers who are found to provide high quality reviews reliably and in time will be considered for positions on the Editorial Board if vacancies arise or if the Editorial Board composition needs changes for any reason.

 

            Student Reviewers.  I will continue the student reviewer program.  Each member of the Editorial Board may nominate a graduate student for a one-year appointment as a Student Reviewer.  I encourage Editorial Board members who have Student Reviewers to use this as a pedagogical experience and work with their students to produce high quality reviews.  I do not expect the same workload from Student Reviewers as from Editorial Board Members.

 

            Review Timetable.  Within a few days of receipt, the manuscript will be assigned to an Action Editor and sent out for review.  As is currently the case, reviewers will be given the option to accept or reject the invitation to review.  I urge the reviewer to resist temptation to pull the “accept” or “reject” trigger too quickly and to instead momentarily reflect on whether she or he (1) can meet the expectation of providing a high quality review within a month and (2) is meeting his or her obligations as Editorial Board member or ad hoc reviewer, as specified above.  Our individual workloads vary, and there is no shame in opting out when the situation calls for it, provided that overall reviewing expectations are being met.  Reviewers will be sent a gentle reminder after the first, second, and third week and a much less gentle reminder three days before the review is due.  If the review is not received within a month, Action Editors may exercise their option to proceed without the review.  Authors given the opportunity to revise and resubmit their manuscripts will typically be offered between one and two months to do so, depending on the nature of the revision.  Extended time periods between submission and revision are especially difficult for reviewers, for they may have forgotten details of the original submission and thus may have to re-read both the original submission and the revision.  Providing timely revisions will ease the review process for reviewers and reduce publication lag.  Further, a reviewer who clears her or his desk to provide a timely review is entitled to a timely response from the author.

 

Journal Impact

 

            ISI Journal impact factors are becoming an increasing critical yardstick by which the quality of journals is measured.  Law and Human Behavior’s impact factor is respectable but variable, as noted in the table below:

 

 

            For those unfamiliar with impact factor values, here are some other 2003 values for the purpose of comparison: Psychology, Crime, and Law: .49; Journal of Applied Social Psychology: .52; Behavioral Sciences & the Law: .79; Journal of Interpersonal Violence: .82; Law and Society Review: .83; Applied Cognitive Psychology: 1.08; Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied: 1.17; Journal of Applied Psychology: 2.17; Psychological Assessment: 2.37; Psychology, Public Policy, and Law: 2.92; Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology: 3.25; Journal of Abnormal Psychology: 3.35; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 3.86.

 

            I would like to see an increase in value and a decrease in variability of Law and Human Behavior’s impact factor.  Naturally, the impact of Law and Human Behavior will depend in large part on the quality of manuscripts published, so send me your best work!  My Associate Editors and I will investigate other factors to which impact factors are sensitive and will develop and implement some recommendations for maximizing Law and Human Behavior’s impact.

 

Implications of Electronic Access

 

            The publisher of Law and Human Behavior, Springer Science + Business Media, offers full-text access to Law and Human Behavior issues from 1997 forward to university library subscribers, AP-LS members at no cost, and to anyone who wishes to purchase articles on-line.  In 2005, Springer will add all back issues on-line to its on-line program.  Downloading of Law and Human Behavior articles is becoming increasingly popular.  According to data collected by Springer, the number of downloaded articles increased from 9,202 in 2002 to 22,105 in 2003 and 27,176 in 2004.  The enhanced electronic access to Law and Human Behavior has an important implication.  Traditionally, the reader would have to wait for the publication of a full issue before getting access to articles published in the issue.  We are moving toward a system in which individual articles will be accepted for publication, produced, and made available on-line prior to the production of a journal issue.  Thus, readers will have faster access to manuscripts accepted for publication, and authors will enjoy a shorter publication lag.

 

Adjust your Bookshelf!

 

            Many readers of Law and Human Behavior will prefer to read their printed copies.  Readers will (hopefully) enjoy a new journal format and cover design.  Beginning with the April 2006 issue, Law and Human Behavior will be printed in the more typical 8.5 x 11 format, and the .pdf files will be formatted accordingly.

 

            In closing, if you have comments about Law and Human Behavior from which I would benefit, or if you have suggestions for invited review articles, special issues, or adversarial forums, please contact me at lhb@email.uncc.edu.  I will check this e-mail box and respond to letters regularly.

 

References

 

Saks, M. J. (1986). The law does not live by eyewitness testimony alone. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 279-280.

 

Roesch, R. (1990). From the editor. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 1-3.

 

Wiener, R. L. (1997). From the editor. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 1-3.

 

Wiener, R.L., Winter, R., Rogers, M., Seib, H., Rauch, S. Kadela, K., Hackney, A., & Warren, L. (2002). Evaluating published research in psychology and law: A gatekeeper analysis of Law and Human Behavior. In J. R.P. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty first century (pp. 416- 435). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.