Probabilistic Approaches Do Not Invalidate Descriptive Studies but Answer Fundamentally Different Questions: Reply to Loh and Ren (2023)

Loh and Ren (2023) critiqued our study on authorship trends in high-impact psychology journals that publish invited submissions for the use of outcome-dependent sampling. Although they offer a useful perspective, their methodological suggestions would answer a fundamentally different research questi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The American psychologist 2023-09, Vol.78 (6), p.814-815
Main Authors: Mackelprang, Jessica L., Johansen, Eva E., Meyer, Denny, Orr, Catherine
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Authorship
Equity
Gender Gap
Probability
Psychology
Scientific Communication
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 815
container_issue 6
container_start_page 814
container_title The American psychologist
container_volume 78
creator Mackelprang, Jessica L.
Johansen, Eva E.
Meyer, Denny
Orr, Catherine
description Loh and Ren (2023) critiqued our study on authorship trends in high-impact psychology journals that publish invited submissions for the use of outcome-dependent sampling. Although they offer a useful perspective, their methodological suggestions would answer a fundamentally different research question from the one we proposed. We thank Loh and Ren (2023) for their constructive contributions to this dialogue.
doi_str_mv 10.1037/amp0001212
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2862197853</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2862197853</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a315t-d0fd090766b5e4f92a8c19fbcd28d479faef071bb05c527c6954746584bdf24a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkduKFDEQhoMoOK7e-AQBb1alNcfuxLthx9WFwbOwdyGdA5ulJ2mT9Mq8gY9tmhEEb7wq_qqP4q_6AXiK0SuM6PBaH2aEECaY3AMbLCnvpETX98GmdWmH-v76IXhUym2TXEi8Ab8-5TTqMUyh1GDgdp5z0ubGFbhL8EOq8Cre6SlYXR3cuWJymGu4c_BrXWxo1LhUuI3lp8vwcolWH1ysepqOcBe8d7kp-HlxbXeK5Q384uY2qgnu0w3U0bZGhOcEEfr8MXjg9VTckz_1DHy_fPvt4n23__ju6mK77zTFvHYWeYskGvp-5I55SbQwWPrRWCIsG6TXzqMBjyPihpPB9JKzgfVcsNF6wjQ9A-enve3QH6szdQjFuGnS0aWlKCJ6guUgOG3os3_Q27Tk2NytFJWkGRH_obAQTCLWqBcnyuRUSnZezTkcdD4qjNQanfobXYNfnmA9azWXo9G5hTO19y95fenKqkGoXgnM6G_JS5rN</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2861884904</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Probabilistic Approaches Do Not Invalidate Descriptive Studies but Answer Fundamentally Different Questions: Reply to Loh and Ren (2023)</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Mackelprang, Jessica L. ; Johansen, Eva E. ; Meyer, Denny ; Orr, Catherine</creator><contributor>Cooper, Harris</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mackelprang, Jessica L. ; Johansen, Eva E. ; Meyer, Denny ; Orr, Catherine ; Cooper, Harris</creatorcontrib><description>Loh and Ren (2023) critiqued our study on authorship trends in high-impact psychology journals that publish invited submissions for the use of outcome-dependent sampling. Although they offer a useful perspective, their methodological suggestions would answer a fundamentally different research question from the one we proposed. We thank Loh and Ren (2023) for their constructive contributions to this dialogue.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-066X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-990X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/amp0001212</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Authorship ; Equity ; Gender Gap ; Probability ; Psychology ; Scientific Communication</subject><ispartof>The American psychologist, 2023-09, Vol.78 (6), p.814-815</ispartof><rights>2023 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2023, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Sep 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0001-7042-8748 ; 0000-0002-0033-0267 ; 0000-0001-9135-7811 ; 0000-0002-9902-0858</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999,33223</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Cooper, Harris</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mackelprang, Jessica L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johansen, Eva E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Denny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orr, Catherine</creatorcontrib><title>Probabilistic Approaches Do Not Invalidate Descriptive Studies but Answer Fundamentally Different Questions: Reply to Loh and Ren (2023)</title><title>The American psychologist</title><description>Loh and Ren (2023) critiqued our study on authorship trends in high-impact psychology journals that publish invited submissions for the use of outcome-dependent sampling. Although they offer a useful perspective, their methodological suggestions would answer a fundamentally different research question from the one we proposed. We thank Loh and Ren (2023) for their constructive contributions to this dialogue.</description><subject>Authorship</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>Gender Gap</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Scientific Communication</subject><issn>0003-066X</issn><issn>1935-990X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkduKFDEQhoMoOK7e-AQBb1alNcfuxLthx9WFwbOwdyGdA5ulJ2mT9Mq8gY9tmhEEb7wq_qqP4q_6AXiK0SuM6PBaH2aEECaY3AMbLCnvpETX98GmdWmH-v76IXhUym2TXEi8Ab8-5TTqMUyh1GDgdp5z0ubGFbhL8EOq8Cre6SlYXR3cuWJymGu4c_BrXWxo1LhUuI3lp8vwcolWH1ysepqOcBe8d7kp-HlxbXeK5Q384uY2qgnu0w3U0bZGhOcEEfr8MXjg9VTckz_1DHy_fPvt4n23__ju6mK77zTFvHYWeYskGvp-5I55SbQwWPrRWCIsG6TXzqMBjyPihpPB9JKzgfVcsNF6wjQ9A-enve3QH6szdQjFuGnS0aWlKCJ6guUgOG3os3_Q27Tk2NytFJWkGRH_obAQTCLWqBcnyuRUSnZezTkcdD4qjNQanfobXYNfnmA9azWXo9G5hTO19y95fenKqkGoXgnM6G_JS5rN</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Mackelprang, Jessica L.</creator><creator>Johansen, Eva E.</creator><creator>Meyer, Denny</creator><creator>Orr, Catherine</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7042-8748</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0033-0267</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9135-7811</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9902-0858</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>Probabilistic Approaches Do Not Invalidate Descriptive Studies but Answer Fundamentally Different Questions: Reply to Loh and Ren (2023)</title><author>Mackelprang, Jessica L. ; Johansen, Eva E. ; Meyer, Denny ; Orr, Catherine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a315t-d0fd090766b5e4f92a8c19fbcd28d479faef071bb05c527c6954746584bdf24a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Authorship</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>Gender Gap</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Scientific Communication</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mackelprang, Jessica L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johansen, Eva E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Denny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orr, Catherine</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PsycARTICLES (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American psychologist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mackelprang, Jessica L.</au><au>Johansen, Eva E.</au><au>Meyer, Denny</au><au>Orr, Catherine</au><au>Cooper, Harris</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Probabilistic Approaches Do Not Invalidate Descriptive Studies but Answer Fundamentally Different Questions: Reply to Loh and Ren (2023)</atitle><jtitle>The American psychologist</jtitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>814</spage><epage>815</epage><pages>814-815</pages><issn>0003-066X</issn><eissn>1935-990X</eissn><abstract>Loh and Ren (2023) critiqued our study on authorship trends in high-impact psychology journals that publish invited submissions for the use of outcome-dependent sampling. Although they offer a useful perspective, their methodological suggestions would answer a fundamentally different research question from the one we proposed. We thank Loh and Ren (2023) for their constructive contributions to this dialogue.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/amp0001212</doi><tpages>2</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7042-8748</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0033-0267</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9135-7811</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9902-0858</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-066X
ispartof The American psychologist, 2023-09, Vol.78 (6), p.814-815
issn 0003-066X
1935-990X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2862197853
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); PsycARTICLES
subjects Authorship
Equity
Gender Gap
Probability
Psychology
Scientific Communication
title Probabilistic Approaches Do Not Invalidate Descriptive Studies but Answer Fundamentally Different Questions: Reply to Loh and Ren (2023)
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T22%3A56%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Probabilistic%20Approaches%20Do%20Not%20Invalidate%20Descriptive%20Studies%20but%20Answer%20Fundamentally%20Different%20Questions:%20Reply%20to%20Loh%20and%20Ren%20(2023)&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20psychologist&rft.au=Mackelprang,%20Jessica%20L.&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=814&rft.epage=815&rft.pages=814-815&rft.issn=0003-066X&rft.eissn=1935-990X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/amp0001212&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2862197853%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a315t-d0fd090766b5e4f92a8c19fbcd28d479faef071bb05c527c6954746584bdf24a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2861884904&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true