Peter B. Smith, Charles Harb, University of Sussex
Walter J. Lonner
Western Washington University Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Tilburg University
This issue marks the beginning of the 32nd volume of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (JCCP). We say this with both pride and humility, and also with considerable optimism about its future. Inaugurated in 1970 as a quarterly publication and with the dedication to ". . . consult all that is human" (part of our initial masthead policy), the judgment was made then that it was time for psychology to give serious, concentrated attention to culture as an essential ingredient in the understanding of human behavior. Indeed, the inauguration of JCCP was one of several developments that took place in psychology during the mid- to late-1960s in which culture played an integral part. While one may speculate why that particular period fostered the development of cross-cultural psychology, we can say with certainty that the true measure of a mature science of human behavior is the extent to which it intentionally seeks to incorporate the broadest possible spectrum of humankind when formulating ideas about the causes and consequences of human behavior. With the exception of some psychologists who hold an absolutistic view of the world, it is clear that psychologists across the globe now recognize the importance of culture in shaping and maintaining human conduct.
these perspectives comes a rather formidable list of potential problems and questions that have been the center of interesting debates. For example, is the best approach the culture-comparative perspective, which is largely, but not exclusively, featured by the classical cross-cultural method? Or is comparativism potentially so fraught with difficulties, including how to deal with selecting samples and how to make various stimuli equivalent across different psycholinguistic groups, that only intense and extremely context-dependent approaches should be attempted?
These issues and debates will continue. We believe that an important way to shine some light on them and on the role of JCCP in them is to monitor the content of the manuscripts that we receive and to contrast those that are accepted for publication with those that are not. Similarly, we believe that it is important to analyze trends and developments. As the flagship publication of cross-cultural psychology, we believe that an analysis of the content of this Journal can be instructive to both readers and those who evaluate the results of cross-cultural research. Periodic analyses like these allow us and our readers to reflect on where we have been and where we are going. For this purpose, we offer the following brief analysis.
Trends in Submissions and Acceptances
subsequently by the editorial team. This leads to the second question: What differences are there between the submissions that JCCP accepts and those that it does not accept?
The present analysis thus differs from the earlier analysis by Öngel and Smith (1994), in that it includes a sample of rejected papers. During the seven-year period under scrutiny, 279 papers were accepted for publication, whereas 665 remain under review or were not accepted. This implies a 29% acceptance rate. However, 21 accepted papers were invited contributions to special issues, so a more accurate rate for acceptances of unsolicited submissions is 27%. This rate has declined to nearer 20% in the most recent years, due to substantial and continuing increase in the number of submitted manuscripts. The data reported below are based upon sampling of all accepted papers and a one-third random sample of non-accepted papers.
Insert Table 1 about here
-Table 1 shows the country of residence of the participants. The eight most frequently sampled nations are exactly the same as found for the preceding 15 year period. During 1980-1993, the eight most frequently sampled nations accounted for 62% of all samples, compared with 59% for the past 7 years. Within this group there is a marked increase in sampling of China (now including Hong Kong), balanced by a modest decline in sampling of the United States, Australia and Israel. The middle section of the table (India to Brazil) indicates the nations that have been next most strongly represented in recent years. There is no difference between acceptance and rejection rates for groups of nations whose sampling frequency is high, medium or low (Chi square = 0.37, df = 2, ns), indicating that editorial policy has not favored studies that sample any particular type of nations.
Insert Table 2 about here
comparing two or more cultural groups from within a single nation, and single-sample studies. Table 2 shows that there has been a substantial increase in cross-national comparisons. The numbers of studies comparing samples within a single nation has held steady, but single-sample studies from within a single nation have declined sharply. Chi square for submissions of the three types of studies is 32.0 (df = 2, p < .001). This effect may be attributable to changing patterns of submission, differences in manuscript quality across these types of studies, and editorial policy, since the pattern of acceptances also differs significantly from the pattern for rejected papers (Chi square = 40.91, df = 2, p < .001).
Insert Table 3 about here
nations. However it is not likely that this effect is simply attributable to author location. It is more probable that a higher proportion of the rejected papers used different types of samples or focused on distinctively different types of topic. These possibilities are now explored.
Table 4 about here
-Table 4 shows the locations of authors for different types of studies published since 1993. As could be expected, submissions involving nations that are more ethnically diverse have yielded a higher proportion of successful submissions with a within-nation design. This profile is particularly marked for the Canada, Israel and Australia. Successful submissions of single-sample studies were more often from infrequently represented nations. However, as was shown in Table 2, studies with cross-national designs have achieved the highest success rate, and it is therefore not surprising that authors from nations who mostly submitted this type of study achieved the highest success rates.
The review by Öngel and Smith (1994) showed a trend toward increasing emphasis within JCCP on social psychological topics. Table 5 appears to indicate that this tendency has been arrested and indeed reversed. However, the figures in the table most probably reflect a difference in the coding procedures employed. In the Öngel and Smith analysis, each study was assigned to a single topic category. In the present analysis, multiple codings were permitted, in order to reflect the fact that many studies spanned more than one category. The 511 codings in the accepted paper column are based upon 279 accepted papers, whereas the 296 codings in the rejected papers column are based upon the one-third sample of 180 rejected papers. The present analysis also included a category (‘cross-cultural theory based’) which was not present in the earlier analysis. Studies coded into this category were those based upon theoretical formulations that are explicitly cross-cultural (such as individualism--collectivism), rather than drawn from some other area of psychological theory.
-The data in Table 5 suggest a broadening of the range of topics that achieve acceptance, with a corresponding decline in coverage of social psychology, personality and methodological issues. Comparison of the percentages for accepted and rejected submissions indicates that submissions in the areas of clinical psychology have been least likely to succeed, followed by manuscripts dealing with acculturation, organizational psychology, and counseling. Submissions in the area of social psychology and especially those that are explicitly based on cross-cultural theory have a significantly higher success rate (Chi square = 7.65, df = 2, p < .05). However, a further analysis of the 79 submitted manuscripts that were based on cross-cultural theory yields further important information. Of these 79, 39 were in the areas of social psychology and personality. Seventy-four percent of these achieved publication. Of the remaining 40 manuscripts based on cross-cultural theory, 77% achieved publication. Thus, it is reliance upon theory rather than the topic area within psychology that yields enhanced chances of acceptance.
Table 6 about here
-A final issue of interest is whether there has been any change in the types of participants in the studies under review. Table 6 indicates an increase in the proportion of accepted papers that are based on sampling of students and a smaller decrease in the proportion of mixed samples. There is also a difference between the percentages for different types of participants between accepted and rejected papers (Chi square = 12.57, df = 5, p < . 05). Submissions sampling adults have been less successful.
Implications
others show more variation. The list of most frequently sampled countries is stable. In particular, the USA features prominently in this list, with 1/4 of all samples coming from this country. The proportion of accepted papers and the countries sampled were found to be independent of one another, despite the many concomitant variables that could connect them, such as the nature of samples and the topics studied.
The new category in our content analysis of theory-based cross-cultural research defines an important new area of publications, which we expect will gain further prominence. These studies often use a systematic sampling of cultures in order to examine cultures that differ on some focal variable, often Individualism—Collectivism. These publications delineate a new generation of studies; we are slowly moving beyond the stage in which cultures are sampled on the basis of convenience rather than theory.
The quality of submitted manuscripts, journal impact factors, and rejection rates tend to reinforce each other, either in a positive or a negative direction. In the period of this review they have positively reinforced each other. Members of the Editorial Board who have served for some years know that the quality of the submitted papers has gone up in recent years. Our analyses revealed an increased rejection rate. Finally, the impact factor of JCCP has increased. The 1999 impact factor is 1.000, which is one of highest ever for this journal. This trend is undoubtedly more appealing to the Editorial Board than to potential authors. Manuscripts submitted to JCCP now have an a priori probability of about .20 of being published in this journal. This acceptance rate is low, though not uncommon in psychology journals.
An important outcome of this analysis involves the role of social-psychological studies. In previous content analyses we found the social-psychological domain to be heavily represented. This has been important throughout the history of cross-cultural psychology. Clearly, social psychology is an area of pre-eminent importance to cross-cultural psychology; yet, if JCCP aims to represent all major areas of cross-cultural research, we have made some progress in this direction.
manuscripts in these less frequently studied areas that are theory-driven have a higher success rate than those in the area of social psychology. As researchers in these fields become more often able to integrate existing theories or to develop new ones, more of these papers will receive positive evaluations from reviewers and will appear in JCCP. We hope to see more submissions in these areas in coming years, and to publish them.
What are our publication plans for the future? No major changes are to be expected. The vast majority of articles to be published will be unsolicited submissions of studies that are in line with our masthead policy. We would like to emphasize that we welcome the trend whereby all major domains of cross-cultural research are represented in JCCP. The main criteria for evaluating manuscripts will continue to be the quality of theory, design, analysis, and write-up. In addition, special issues will be published and these will focus on promising domains of theory and research in cultural psychology. Finally, we will invite cross-cultural researchers to submit reviews or reports of recently completed studies.
Reference
Table 1: Country of Residence of Participants Sampled in Research Projects Country Percentage accepted 1993-2000 Percentage rejected 1993-2000 Percentage published 1980-1993 United States 24.8 27.6 28.0
China (incl. Hong Kong) 10.0 9.8 5.6
Japan 5.3 6.5 6.3 Canada 4.5 2.9 3.8 Germany 4.0 1.5 3.4 Israel 3.8 1.8 5.8 Australia 3.6 7.6 5.6 United Kingdom 3.0 2.5 3.1 India 2.3 1.8 2.5 Taiwan 2.3 1.8 2.2 Korea 2.1 1.8 1.6 Netherlands 1.9 1.5 1.4 Italy 1.9 0.0 1.1 Philippines 1.5 0.7 1.6 Russia 1.5 2.2 0.0 Turkey 1.3 0.7 1.4 Mexico 1.3 1.8 2.3 Finland 1.3 0.7 0.0 Singapore 1.3 2.5 0.0 Nepal 1.3 0.0 0.0 Indonesia 1.0 1.1 0.0 Greece 0.8 0.7 1.6 Poland 0.8 0.7 1.4 South Africa 0.8 3.3 2.2 Spain 0.8 2.2 0.0 Brazil 0.8 0.4 0.9 Othera 15.4 15.6 18.1 Frequency 468 825 552
Note. Only 1/3 of rejected manuscripts were sampled. Frequencies in the rejected column have been multiplied by three to estimate the full sample values. The names of nations sampled three times or less refer only to the accepted papers column. The 19 studies that
sampled more than 10 nations were not included in the analysis.
Table 2: Manuscripts associated with Four Types of Research Design Percentage accepted 1993-2000 Percentage rejected 1993-2000 Percentage published 1980-1993 Cross-national 54.5 33.9 38.1 Within-nation 26.2 32.2 23.6 Single nation 10.4 25.0 27.1 Review 9.0 8.9 11.3 Frequency 279 540 373
Table 3: Location of All Authors of Accepted and Rejected Manuscripts Percentage accepted 1993-2000 Percentage rejected 1993-2000 Percentage published 1980-1993 United States 34.2 40.2 49.1
China (incl. Hong Kong) 7.5 8.3 4.6
Canada 5.0 4.6 5.8 Japan 4.5 4.6 3.1 Israel 4.3 2.1 5.4 Australia 4.3 8.3 6.6 Germany 4.1 1.2 4.0 Netherlands 3.9 2.1 2.6 United Kingdom 3.6 2.9 1.8 India 1.8 1.2 0.9 New Zealand 1.8 1.7 0.9 Korea 1.8 2.1 0.2 Taiwan 1.6 1.7 0.9 Turkey 1.4 0.4 0.8 Italy 1.4 0.0 0.8 Mexico 1.4 0.4 1.1 Finland 1.4 0.0 0.2 Poland 1.1 0.8 0.6 Nepal 0.9 0.0 0.0 Russia 0.9 0.8 0.0 Other1 13.2 16.6 10.6 Frequency 441 723 845
Note. Only 1/3 of rejected manuscripts were sampled. Frequencies in the rejected column have been multiplied by three to estimate the full sample value. The author locations sampled three times or less refer only to the accepted papers column. Two papers with over ten authors were excluded from the analysis.
Table 4: Author Locations for Three Types of Published Studies Percentage single sample Percentage within nation Percentage between nations Country total United States 5.2 21.6 85 116 Canada 0.0 33.3 14 21 Australia 5.9 41.2 9 17 Israel 11.1 38.9 9 18
China (incl. Hong Kong) 2.4 14.3 35 42
Japan 12.0 4.0 21 25
Germany 0.0 5.3 18 19
All others 16.7 18.7 62 96
Table 5: Submission and Acceptance Data by Topic Percentage published 1993-2000 Percentage rejected 1993-2000 Percentage published 1980-1993 Social 28.2 24.0 51.5 Cross-Cultural Theory-Based 10.6 6.1 -Personality 8.4 8.1 12.8 Developmental 7.8 6.8 5.6 Acculturation 5.7 9.5 2.1
Clinical (includes health and
counseling) 4.1 12.2 0.4 Cognition 7.0 5.7 6.9 Education 4.5 6.8 1.6 Psychometrics 3.9 6.4 1.6 Methodology 4.4 2.7 13.6 Organizational 3.3 5.1 0.3 Language 4.1 1.0 1.6 Perception 1.8 1.0 1.3 Other 6.2 4.7 0.5 Frequency 511 888 373
Table 6: Composition of Samples in Accepted and Rejected Manuscripts Percentage published 1993-2000 Percentage rejected 1993-2000 Percentage published 1980-1993 Young children 13.8 9.8 17.3 Adolescents 10.3 11.7 14.6 Students 43.5 42.3 31.9 Adults 22.1 30.6 22.9 Mixed 6.3 3.7 13.4 Secondary sources 4.0 1.8 0.0 Frequency 253 489 373
