Publication avec DOI
Récupéré
Publication
crossref
Katherine M. Lawson, Brett A. Murphy, Jovani Azpeitia, Ella J. Lombard, Terrènce J. Pope
(2025).
Citing Decisions in Psychology: A Roadblock to Cumulative and Inclusive Science.
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 8(3), 25152459251351287.
SAGE Publications.
- Date de publication
-
03/09/2025
- Identifiant
-
10.1177/25152459251351287
- Auteurs
-
Katherine M. Lawson,
Brett A. Murphy,
Jovani Azpeitia,
Ella J. Lombard,
Terrènce J. Pope
- Source
- Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science
- Détails
- 8(3), 25152459251351287
- Type de référence
- article
- Éditeur
- SAGE Publications
- Source de métadonnées
- crossref
Résumé
Citations are the main avenue through which scholarly contributions are recognized. However, decisions about what to cite (or not cite) are often made without much systematic thought. Suboptimal citing practices undermine psychological science. Yet psychological science as a field has yet to comprehensively discuss ways to improve authors’ citing decisions. We outline the importance of citing for promoting the cumulativeness of the scientific endeavor, which encompasses promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field. We describe how psychologists make citing decisions and some negative consequences when citation decisions are negligent (or even fraudulent). Moreover, we describe how citations driven by insular professional networks can reinforce historical exclusion and result in reference sections that reflect a failure to meaningfully search and engage with existing literature. Then, we review some potential causes of problematic citing behaviors, which include factors that manifest at the level of the individual, such as a desire to elevate one’s own professional profile, and systemic factors, such as the exponential growth in published literature. Finally, we offer strategies for the field, journals, labs, and individuals to improve citations. In framing our arguments and recommendations, we refer to empirical data collected on citing decisions from editorial-board members (N = 213) at 23 psychology journals.
Auteur·ices de l’étude dans cette référence citée