Applied and Preventive Psychology 11 (2004) 91–93

Editorial

Back and the Future

It is a distinct pleasure to prepare this Editorial, one ofmany markers of the transition ofApplied and PreventivePsychology: Current Scientific Perspectivesto our newpublisher, Elsevier. Although a publication year was missedin the transition,APP is now officially and decisively backand looking to the future.

As I anticipated in my first Editorial (Smith, 2000),scholarly publishing continues to undergo rapid changesthat will undoubtedly continue for years to come. However,unlike in my prior Editorial, in this Editorial I will resist thetieIief

opeMiajmcAir1Swo

tIH

the major journals in biomedical and related social sciencesto local, non-profit institutions in developing countries.HINARI strives to strengthen public health services byproviding public health workers, researchers and policymakers access to high-quality, relevant and timely healthinformation via the internet.

This tremendous boost in accessibility positions thejournal well to build upon the growing reputation we weredeveloping with our former publisher. As of 2002,APPranked 8th of 48 journals in “Applied Psychology” and 19th of

ct

wethewithmys, and

ing

0d

emptation to provide a litany of contemporary publishingssues. Clearly, such a litany will soon seem as quaint as myxpressed trepidation about the Y2K bug four years ago.nstead, let me just make a few remarks about some journalnitiatives and then reiterate, for the benefit of our newlectronic-access audience, some editorial matters already

amiliar to loyal subscribers and friends ofAPP.For the first time in its 11 volume history,APPis available

nline as part of ScienceDirect, Elsevier’s electronic accessroduct. ScienceDirect makesAPP readily available to anxceptionally wide audience of new virtual subscribers.

79 journals in “Clinical Psychology”, with a citation impafactor of 1.44 (Institute for Scientific Information, 2002).

It would be foolish to radically alter the approachfollowed in generating that level of scientific impact andpositive trajectory that preceded it. Therefore, alongthe Editorial Council and Associate Editorial Board,goal is to preserve and expand the traditions, standardscope that have always made reading and publishing inAPPrewarding. Of course you can further this goal by continuto read, cite, and even write forAPP.

any of you are probably reading this Editorial electron-cally. If not, you might also give electronic access a tryt: www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09621849. The

ournal is also very competitively priced, especially for., theicalbeen. Thessic

Karl,longe set

ghlthI).to

1. APP’sNiche

APP’s niche has not changed since my last Editorial, sof dye cupyi ce.

n ofd thans gy,c hool,p therk n-e al fora logy.T ncieso e an

d.

embers of select associations and societies (e.gurrent rate for members of the American Psychologssociation is $50.00 USD). Resubscription rates have

mpressive as was the response to the re-launch issuee-launch issue included a reprinting of Paul Meehl’s cla978 paper, “Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sirir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology” aith contemporary peer commentaries by an impressivf eminent scholars (Smith, 2004).

Particularly gratifying is the journal’s availability throuhe United Nations/World Health Organization’s HeanterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARINARI provides free or very low cost online access

962-1849/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserveoi:10.1016/j.appsy.2004.11.001

or the remainder of this Editorial, I simply reprint, for realectronic access, our collective vision of the niche we oc

n what has become a rather crowded journal marketplaAPP has adopted the somewhat unusual positio

efining its scope with respect to content ratherub-discipline. It is not a journal for clinical psycholoounseling psychology, educational, developmental, scersonality, social, industrial/organizational, or any oind of psychology. Nor is it a journal strictly for practitiors, scientists, educators, or administrators. It is a journll who are interested in applied and preventive psychohis means we have one of the largest potential constituef any psychological journal. On the other hand, we hav

92 Editorial / Applied and Preventive Psychology 11 (2004) 91–93

equally large array of more specialized “competition”, soto speak. The competition falls into a fairly small set ofcategories, though, and I believe they miss a vital scholarlydomain thatAPP is unusually well positioned to capture.

Most of the top psychological journals publish originalempirical research reports within their various specializedsub-fields. There are also important journals featuringscholarly literature reviews. And there are practice-focusedand trade journals concerned with practical aspects ofservice delivery. AlthoughAPPdoes not ordinarily publishempirical research reports, it already publishes scientificreviews, and its authors do not shy from tying these reviewsto pragmatic intervention and prevention concerns. Apartfrom original research reports, then, our scope alreadyencompasses much of the content to be found elsewhere inscientific psychological journals, namely reviews of empiri-cal research on applied and preventive psychological topics.In my view, there are presently enough outlets for empiricalresearch reports, and I do not intend to begin inviting papersof that sort. Rather, what is more difficult to find elsewhere,and what I would like to emphasize more inAPP, is theory.

An added emphasis on theory in an applied journal mayat first seem misplaced. After all, it is commonplace toconsider theoretical and applied work as contradictory. Andsurely there is some validity to this perception. In ordert ricalr ctorsa ingsa nnotb plieds it isd sort.R worka nce)o don

uiten I don ald ill bea ree e tob nsw ally,a s tob whyt ouldl theyw icless theri lsoo

au-t rtionst rits,t ttract

attempts to test limits, provide helpful guides for clarifyingempirical puzzles, generate novel predictions, invite interdis-ciplinary contributions, are of pedagogical value, and providea structure for others studying the same problem. AlthoughI am not aware of a quantitative study, I’ll model the targetbehavior by making the risky prediction that were an appro-priate study to be done, it would show the citation impactof the average theoretical contribution exceeds the impact ofthe average strictly empirical contribution by half an orderof magnitude (that’s even a point prediction!). I believe thisis the product of two healthy, though complementary, forces;we try to identify the earliest citation for ideas and the mostrecent citation for data, shortening the impact of empiricalpublications and lengthening the impact of theoretical ones.That is why I hope authors are eager to accept the challengeof bolstering their theoretical efforts.

Why might readers – particularly readers doing appliedwork – be eager to see more theoretical efforts inAPP? KurtLewin is widely-cited for his dictum that there is nothingso practical as a good theory. This is not the place to un-pack this pregnant phrase, though doing so with respect tothe scientist-practitioner split in American psychology couldbe a most illuminating exercise. Let me just suggest, to take asingle example, that practitioner reservations about evidence-based practice dictums can, in the main, be attributed to thep to as e, iti ndsa ativep the-o ns,c eativee e tar-g mep var-i rgetsa rtu-n eansw tar-g ethert f in-fl eas-i cand tance,k fromt em-i itivet rein-f atedo stan-d mosts -t uallys , andI ch ano

o make unambiguous theoretical contributions, empiesearch tends to be very controlled. Once too many fare controlled, however, it is easy to dismiss the finds irrelevant to applied settings where such control cae duplicated. Conversely, research in uncontrolled apettings is often so prone to alternative interpretations,ifficult to make secure generalizations of a theoreticalesearchers themselves often characterize their owns either “basic” (meaning of largely theoretical relevar “applied”, suggesting that contributions to one areaot bear directly on the other.

Too often, I fear, when we think of science we think qarrowly of data. This is appropriate as far as it goes, andot want to reduceAPP’s traditional emphasis on empiricata in exchange for more theoretical efforts. Instead, I wsking authors toaugmenttheir data-based reviews with moxtensive theoretical analysis. That is, data will continue the foundation ofAPP articles, but theoretical sectioill be encouraged and afforded additional space. Ideuthors will take theoretical risks, exposing themselveeing proved wrong by making clear statements about

hey believe the data are the way they are. Essentially, I wike APP to become the place where scholars go whenant to be more expansive theoretically. Of course, arthould be insightful, engaging, and provocative, but anondication of meeting my goals will be that articles are accasionally controversial.

In exchange for taking theoretical risks, let me offerhors the observation that clear, testable, theoretical asseend to be unusually influential. Among their many meheoretical contributions that are strongly data-based a

erception that doing so presently entails conformancepecified set of therapeutic behaviors. In my experiencs only whenboth therapeutic means and therapeutic ere dictated that practitioners get agitated. An alternerspective holds that one can use scientifically-basedry to identify the targets of intervention (e.g., cognitioonsequences), and leave practitioners to focus their crnergies on finding the best means to influence thesets in light of each client’s unique situation. Similarly, sorograms of research identify the means of influencing

ous targets of intervention, but whether or not those tare important is up to the practitioner to decide. Unfoately, most treatment-outcome research confounds mith ends, testing specific intervention effects on specificets. Null findings in such cases are ambiguous as to wh

he wrong target was chosen or an ineffective means ouencing that target is to blame. Means and ends arely distinguished in theoretical efforts, inasmuch as theyraw upon separable basic research literatures. For insnowing the principles of attitude change as adducedhe basic attitude change research literature would benently practical for those attempting to enhance cognherapy. Similarly, a better understanding of theories oforcement could be quite practical for managing complicr unusual contingencies not well represented in theard treatment-outcome research literature upon whichcientific practice is now reliant. InAPP I hope that pracitioners receive less ambiguous, less offensive, but eqcientific guidance than is elsewhere presently availableam open to feedback along the way to help assure suutcome.

Editorial / Applied and Preventive Psychology 11 (2004) 91–93 93

2. Two Provisos

Let me close by attaching two provisos to my encourage-ment of further theoretical development inAPP. First of all,let me reiterate that theoretical efforts are to be data-based.That is what will keepAPP distinctive. Theoretical psy-chology bears the same responsibility to data as theoreticalphysics. I think it is profoundly unfortunate that theoret-ical/conceptual contributions in applied and preventivedomains tend largely to be poorly grounded empirically. Itis little consolation that this situation curiously parallels thetheoretical weakness in many data-based contributions. InAPP they should come together.Theoretical efforts must begrounded in the best contemporary data available.

The second proviso I wish to attach to my encouragementof theoretical efforts concerns what I consider the “levelsof theory” problem that is particularly acute in applied andpreventive domains. Apart from simple restatements offindings, it is difficult to imagineany generalizations fromdata that are not in some way theoretical. In all researchdomains, there are many important levels of analysis –descriptive, epistemological, statistical, political, economic,developmental, structural, functional – any one of whichmight lead to breakthroughs in understanding and none ofwhich is necessarily less or more important in the generics lysisf andaa pressa hera ificc tracts asedu tivea .

3. Conclusion

In addition to advocating theory, Kurt Lewin is alsofamous for his encouragement of “action research”, whichis theoretically important research conducted in appliedsettings where it can have real impact on people.APPdoesnot ordinarily publish original research, so it would be outof place to press such an agenda here. But I hope authorsare able to turn Lewin’s encouragement around and produce“action articles”, articles that draw applied and preventivetheoretical implications out of today’s best psychologicalscience.

But this should come as no surprise. After all, our journal’stitle isApplied andPreventive Psychology: Current ScientificPerspectives.

References

Institute for Scientific Information (2002). 2001 Journal CitationReports®. Philadelphia, PA: Author.

Smith, D. A. (2000). Editorial: “Applied” is not “atheoretical.”Appliedand Preventive Psychology: Current Scientific Perspectives, 9, 1–3.

Smith, D. A. (Ed.) (2004). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: SirKarl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology [specialissue].Applied& Preventive Psychology: Current Scientific Perspec-tives, 11(1), 1–89.

)meSA

33u

ense of the term. The most appropriate level of anaor each article will, of course, vary from area-to-areauthor-to-author. But inasmuch asAPP’sdomain is “appliednd preventive” psychology, it seems reasonable tos wellfor contributions that are practical. That is, whetuthors are “right” or “wrong” in their analyses of specontent domains will be gauged not against some abstandard of truth but according to whether actions bpon their work appear likely to lead to more or less effecction according to the best presently available science

David A. Smith (EditorDepartment of Psychology, University of Notre Da118 Haggar Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556-5636, U

Tel.: +1 574/631 776fax: +1 574/631 888

E-mail address:David.A.Smith.367@nd.ed