Editorial: Case Studies and Series: A Call for Action and Invitation for Submissions

The integration of research and practice in the field of pediatric psychology remains an important but elusive goal, despite early precedents (Wright, 1967; Wright, Nunnery, Eichel, & Scott, 1968) and more recent developments in dissemination of empirically supported interventions (Spirito & Kazak, 2006) and evidence-based assessments (Cohen et al., 2008). Despite these developments, published research in pediatric psychology still does not emphasize intervention, clinical significance, or dissemination of valid interventions (Brown, 2007; Drotar, 2002; Kazak, 2000; LaGreca, 1997; Roberts, 1992). Moreover, published research on psychological interventions generally does not focus on clinical populations that are seen in pediatric practice-based settings (Drotar, 2002, 2006, 2009). Moreover, most practicing pediatric psychologists are not engaged in research that evaluates the effectiveness of their clinical practices. The net effect of these patterns is continuing isolation of research and practice in pediatric psychology that is also reflected in published work in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP). Powerful forces have sustained less than optimal integration of research and practice in pediatric psychology. For example, even in the most academically oriented medical settings, fiscal incentives for practitioners focus primarily on clinical care, especially billable hours, rather than on developing practice-based research. Moreover, research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is generally not conducted in clinical populations because of sampling (e.g., presence of comorbid conditions) and study design considerations as well as the considerable pragmatic obstacles involved in conducting research in practice settings (Drotar et al., 2000). For example, it is very difficult to conduct and sustain research in practice settings given limitations in space, time, and resources (e.g., research assistants, data analytic support, etc.). Heterogeneous clinical practice patterns also make it difficult to achieve the level of experimental control and treatment fidelity that are required for intervention studies. Moreover, NIH review places a premium on testing new intervention models rather than dissemination or clinical application of evidence-based interventions into practice. Based on the above constraints, and to the point of this editorial, research that is published in the JPP focuses on empirical descriptive or explicative research (Roberts, 1992) and randomized trials of intervention rather than case series and clinical effectiveness studies that evaluate the application of interventions conducted in clinical care settings. Such publication patterns reflect the content of manuscripts that are submitted to JPP. In order to shift these publication patterns, I am very interested in encouraging authors to submit clinically relevant research, case reports and series, and studies of clinical effectiveness to JPP. Such research can have important scientific and clinical impact on the field of pediatric psychology. For example, single subject designs and clinical case reports have heuristic value and scientific utility in suggesting new directions for research or clinical care by documenting success or failures of empirically supported interventions in clinical settings, describing the generalizability of research to practice, and evaluating new practice-based interventions (Drotar, 2009; Drotar, LaGreca, Lemanek, & Kazak, 1995). Studies designed to test psychological interventions that improve the power and effectiveness of those conducted in clinical settings will enhance the psychological and health outcomes of children who are seen by practicing pediatric psychologists. Moreover, studies of the comparative effectiveness of alternative interventions should have increased priority under Health Care Reform and for work funded by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. Finally, it is also important to note that the need for greater clinical

This issue of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) includes articles submitted for a special issue on “Longitudinal Research in Pediatric Psychology.” In the Call for Papers, we sought empirically oriented manuscripts that employed longitudinal designs and theoretical, methodological, or statistical papers relevant to longitudinal research. Examples of potential topics were provided in the Call and included: (a) familial, peer, and/or other contextual predictors of subsequent change in health-compromising behaviors in typically developing children or change in health-related behaviors and processes in children with chronic illness, (b) the impact of chronic illness on normative development or the consequences of varying developmental trajectories for subsequent health-related behaviors and processes, (c) studies that isolate different health trajectories as well as predictors of such differential outcomes, (d) tests of prospective mediational or causal predictor models based on longitudinal data, and (e) prevention, health promotion, and intervention studies with multiple data collection points that identify intervening mechanisms of change in health outcome. In response to the Call for Papers, 15 manuscripts were submitted. This issue includes eight of these articles; the first focuses on statistical strategies that can be used with longitudinal data and the other seven papers are empirical studies. Longitudinal studies permit examination of changes in health-related behaviors and processes over time. Such designs can be retrospective or prospective, with the latter having clear advantages over the former (Loeber & Farrington, 1994). As will be argued in more detail below, prospective longitudinal investigations of children with chronic physical conditions may be particularly informative when change is examined during critical developmental periods or transition points (e.g., early childhood, the transition to school, the early adolescent transition, the transition to adulthood). Indeed, a chronic condition is “chronic”; the impact of the condition is likely to unfold over time. At the most complex level of analysis, the task for the researcher is to understand a chronic condition that is changing over time in an individual that is also changing, developing, and maturing over time. Despite the advantages of longitudinal designs in addressing such issues, most studies in the fields of clinical child psychology and pediatric psychology are not longitudinal. In an earlier special issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) on “The Role of Longitudinal Data with Child Psychopathology and Treatment,” Wierson and Forehand (1994) conducted a review of articles published on children and adolescents between 1983 and 1992 and found that only 4% were longitudinal (with 13% of those in JCCP being longitudinal). Of course, not all research questions require longitudinal designs, but Wierson and Forehand’s (1994) review suggests that such designs are more the exception than the rule. Within the field of pediatric psychology (and in JPP, in particular), most scholars suggest in their “future directions” sections that longitudinal data would be beneficial. Indeed, Wallander and Varni (1998) argued that developmentally oriented longitudinal studies in the field of pediatric psychology would be informative: “General developmental processes should become more salient features of the conceptualizations of adjustment in this special group. Longitudinal designs need to become the norm” (p. 42). In this introductory article, we first discuss advantages of longitudinal research in the study of children and adolescents with chronic conditions. Next, we provide an overview of several factors one may wish to consider when designing longitudinal studies with pediatric populations. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the articles included in this special issue.

The theoretical and research literatures on links between family functioning and pediatric chronic health conditions are extensive both in their comprehensiveness and depth. On the other hand, the assessment of family relationships is no easy task and there appear to be gaps between the quality of our family assessment methods and our theories, research methodologies, and clinical endeavors (Kazak, 2008). Why is the assessment of family functioning so challenging? First, when studying families, the focus of one’s research questions can be on individuals (e.g., the functioning of mothers, fathers, children), dyads (e.g., relations between mothers and children, relations within sibling pairs), the family system (e.g., the level of cohesiveness in the family as a whole), or any combination of these. Second, the same individual may serve different roles within the family (e.g., a mother could also be a spousal partner; an adolescent is a child but could also be a sibling). Third, there are different methods of assessment that can be employed with families (e.g., questionnaires, observational methods, interviews, daily diaries) and these methods often yield nonoverlapping or divergent data. Fourth, with our assessment methods, we are attempting to evaluate the functioning of the families where the individuals themselves as well as their health status are changing over time. Finally, such research is particularly challenging in families with individuals who have chronic health conditions because the assessment of family functioning can be based on generic and/or illness-related family assessment methods. Despite such challenges, empirical studies of families are among the most common types of research in the field of pediatric psychology and have been the basis for entire volumes and special issues of journals. In fact, one of the co-editors of the current special issue authored a review of 29 of the most commonly used family-based measures in pediatric psychology and concluded that the database for 19 of these measures had advanced to the point where they could be classified as “well-established” (Alderfer et al., 2008). Although this is an impressive number of high-quality measures, Alderfer et al. (2008) also advanced several recommendations for those who seek to further the quality of family assessment in the field of pediatric psychology. First, they maintained that many family measures were developed on general populations and that little is known about the psychometric quality of these measures in samples of individuals with chronic health conditions. Second, they suggested that we need more studies that focus on fathers and siblings and that the literature on the effects of factors such as family structure and ethnicity on family functioning in pediatric populations is less well developed. Finally, they suggested that we lack knowledge concerning the clinical utility and treatment sensitivity of our family-based measures (Alderfer et al., 2008). Although one issue of a journal could not possibly address all of the challenges of family assessment or the recommendations of Alderfer et al. (2008), the current special issue moves the field forward by providing new measures (including the development of noncategorical and disease-specific measures of various aspects of family functioning), novel uses of previously developed measures, and new approaches to integrating across existing measures. The contributors are all to be commended for the value of their research in advancing the field of pediatric psychology. In this commentary, we first discuss the many strengths of the articles in this issue. Next, we evaluate the evidence base for the family-based instruments included in these papers by using the checklist for measure development and validation, which we published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology in 2009 (Holmbeck & Devine, 2009). Finally, we discuss research that is needed to continue our progress in the area of family assessment.

The field of intervention research in pediatric psychology has evolved to the point that there are a sufficient number of controlled clinical trials, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to warrant a special ongoing section of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) that will be devoted to this topic. There will be a rolling deadline for this section so that manuscripts can be submitted at any time. We are optimistic that an ongoing section of this Journal will serve not only to highlight RCTs of psychological interventions but also to stimulate publication of the results of RCTs for psychological interventions, which are very much needed in the field of pediatric psychology (McGrath, Stinson, & Davidson, 2003). One reason to develop this special section of the Journal is that controlled intervention studies, especially RCTs, raise difficult methodological, practical, and ethical challenges that need to be considered by researchers, reviewers, and editors. To address this need, the purpose of this special section will be to publish original work in any of the following areas: (a) New data from RCTs of psychological interventions, including preventive interventions, conducted with a range of pediatric populations; (b) Key methodological and data analytic problems involved in RCTs and examples of approaches to their solution; (c) Relevant logistical problems in conducting RCTs in pediatric settings and examples of innovative approaches to their solution; (d) Critical ethical issues in conducting RCTs with pediatric populations and potential approaches to their solution; and finally, (e) Theoretical contributions that relate to development of RCTs with pediatric populations. Relevant manuscripts will include data concerning the results of RCTs, critical reviews, and descriptions, including brief reports concerning pilot and feasibility studies, innovative methodologies and statistical approaches that are applicable to RCTs. As recommended by McGrath et al., (2003) and Stinson, McGrath, & Yamada, (2003), empirical reports of data from RCTs that are submitted to this special section will be expected to conform to the CONSORT statement criteria developed to improve standards of reporting RCTs in medical journals (Altman et al., 2001) and with the five additional CONSORT items that have been proposed for review and reporting of psychosocial interventions (Davidson et al., in press; McGrath et al., 2003; Stinson et al., 2003). The CONSORT criteria were designed to accomplish the following: (a) Improve the quality of the conduct of clinical trials by guiding investigators’ attention to important details including the method of randomization, report of blinding status etc.; (b) Provide important details to be reported in a standard way for readers of journals such as JPP, and facilitate comprehension of these reports by readers; (c) help to make the published data from RCTs more easily retrievable, thus increasing the ease of conducting systematic reviews and meta analyses from articles that report RCTs. It is fitting that Stark and colleagues’ report of RCT designed to increase calcium (CA) intake in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) is the publication that launches our special section. This study has a number of important features. First of all, it is a preventive intervention trial that was designed to enhance bone mass density in children with JRA who, similar to other children with chronic health conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Crohn’s disease are at greater risk of low bone mass density and hence onset of osteoporosis earlier in their development (Mackner, McGrath, & Stark, 2001). Despite its importance to the field, preventionfocused intervention research has not received sufficient attention in published work in JPP (Kazak, 2002; La Greca, 1997; Roberts, 1992). To address this need,

I feel grateful and privileged to receive the 2014 Society of Pediatric Psychology Wright Ross Salk Distinguished Service Award, named for three legendary pediatric psychologists who had the foresight to create the Society for Pediatric Psychology (SPP). It is my intent here to honor their contributions and highlight the gifts I have received through my membership in and affiliation with colleagues, friends, students, and trainees of Division 54. Logan Wright, Dorothea Ross, and Lee Salk are luminaries in the field of pediatric psychology. In fact, Dr. Ross received the SPP Distinguished Contributions Award in 1979, before I was even aware of pediatric psychology and before I had begun graduate school. As noted at that time, ‘‘She was one of the three who founded the Society in 1968, putting her great and sustained energy into this task’’ (Award Announcement, News and Notes, 1979). Dr. Ross was not able to attend the award presentation, but her remarks were read to the members of the Society in attendance, and her acceptance speech was reprinted in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (1979), in which she noted: ‘‘I feel that the great strides made by the Society in a little over a decade should be numbered among the advances in pediatrics cited in connection with the International Year of the Child.’’ She went on to describe the ‘‘air of vigor and resiliency about the fledgling Society that foretold success, productivity, and longevity’’ and ‘‘our jubilation when the membership roster reached 100’’ (now at 1,600 members). Logan Wright was a pioneering founder of SPP and served as the Society’s first President in 1969. These organizational contributions occurred while he was a faculty member in pediatric psychology at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. Dr. Wright wrote the first seminal article about pediatric psychology, published in the American Psychologist in 1967: ‘‘Pediatric Psychology: A Role Model.’’ His writing about training for pediatricians paved the way for the pediatric subspecialty of developmental and behavioral pediatrics, physicians who continue to be primary collaborators with pediatric psychologists across the country. Following the American Psychologist article, Wright chaired the Committee on Pediatric Psychology as a subgroup of Division 12’s Section of Clinical Child Psychology, with both Dorothea Ross and Lee Salk as members of that committee. It is noteworthy that the founder of pediatric psychology also served as the President of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1986. Dr. Lee Salk, brother ofNobel Prize recipient (for the polio vaccine), Jonas Salk, served as the Director of Pediatric Psychology at Cornell University Medical Center. In a 1974 interview with People Magazine, he was described as ‘‘. . .one of America’s most admired practitioners in the contentious field of child psychology.’’ He was one of the founders and President of the Division of Child, Youth, and Family Services (Division 37) and awarded the first Distinguished Contributions Award from SPP. Dr. Salk was well known for televisionand print media interviewsduring the1960’s, which provided publicity for pediatric psychology and facilitated funding resources. The first meeting of the Society was held at the1968SanFranciscoAPAConvention,with theorganization initially referred to as the Society FOR Pediatric Psychology, eventually becoming the Society OF Pediatric Psychology. Each of these individuals played a leadership role in the establishment, promotion, and growth of SPP, now a thriving independent division of APA. This legacy of ‘‘distinguished service’’ is exemplified through the spirit of the SPP’s Wright Ross Salk Award, with this history being carried forward by other pediatric psychologists who continue to serve the Society and its members. A review of dictionaries highlighted various definitions of ‘‘distinguished service’’ including ‘‘characterized by excellence or distinction; noble or dignified in conduct or

Starting with the first issue of 2008, the Journal of Pediatric Psychology, (JPP) will have a new editorial board with a 3-year term. This change was accomplished to recognize the work of ad hoc reviewers and to involve a diverse editorial board with respect to age, sex, ethnicity, content area of expertize, professional discipline, and country. Congratulations to the new and remaining board members! They are joined by a reviewer panel, which is a new position that was developed to provide interested and promising reviewers with additional experience in reviewers for JPP. We anticipate that the combination of the new editorial board and the reviewer panel will facilitate our abilities to sustain the high level of expertize, quality, and timeliness for JPP. In making this change, it is very important to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of the editorial board of JPP, most especially those who are rotating off the board. Without naming individuals, some of these board members have held their position for more than 30 years: Now that’s dedication! Editorial board members are truly the unsung heroes and heroines of the community of scholars in the field of pediatric psychology. They spend an extraordinary amount of time on manuscript reviews, all of which is unrecompensed in dollars, in order to enhance the science of the field of pediatric psychology and provide mentorship to authors and other reviewers. The currency that sustains the editorial board’s contributions involves caring, concern, and dedication. They care deeply about the quality of the scholarship and research in the field of pediatric psychology and about providing feedback to scientists about their work. Countless authors have benefited from their work (see my editorial in this issue). On behalf of authors and the field of pediatric psychology, we thank you for your extraordinary dedication and hard work.

How can we describe and expand our understanding of the history of pediatric psychology and learn from it? This is an important question as the field matures and grows in size and impact. There are valuable articles describing the history of the field, including its defining period in the mid to late 1960s (c.f., Mesibov, 1984; Routh; 1975; Walker, 1988; White, 1991) and of the first 25 years of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) (Kazak, 2000). Evidence of collaborations between psychologists and pediatricians dating further back to the late 1890s is also recorded (Lee & Kazak, 2014; Routh, 1975). However, what has been largely missing so far are scholarly papers explicitly focused on identifying and interpreting key influences, trends, events, and developments in the field. Recognizing the timeliness of such reflective and integrative papers, JPP is initiating a new feature—Historical Analysis in Pediatric Psychology. Papers in this series are intended to expand our understanding of the roots, evolution, and/or impact of pediatric psychology as a discipline. They may focus on the influence of individuals, published works, organizations, conceptualizations, philosophies or approaches, or clinical and professional activities. Writing a “history paper” is a different type of writing from standard psychology research papers or clinical reports. These papers require stepping back to articulate a clear question or premise and developing a compelling argument for it. To be credible, they must include a breadth of coverage and ensure that contradictory data and potential biases are considered and acknowledged respectfully. Historical analysis is more than a recounting of the “facts” and should include a thoughtful and scholarly interpretation of the subject matter. It is important to understand the context and the period in which events occurred and to make sense of changes that have occurred that may have altered or expanded our present understanding. Finally, careful fact-checking and reliance on primary sources whenever possible is essential for accuracy and credibility. Authors and readers must also be mindful that any singular paper cannot possibly capture all the nuances and factors addressed in the paper. Thus, it is hoped that ongoing dialogue in future papers can provide other, novel, and enriching detail to promote dialogue and ultimate understanding of the evolution of the field. We have ample primary sources (“data”) for Historical Analysis papers and it is these data that we encourage authors to use for these papers. In addition to published papers (there are now close to 40 volumes of the JPP), each outgoing editor of JPP has published a detailed vale dictum summarizing trends in publications during their terms. The articles in the ongoing Pioneers in Pediatric Psychology series in JPP offer rich descriptions of the work of pediatric psychology leaders. Progress Notes, the newsletter of Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP), also provides important information relevant to the history of the field, and now includes short focused articles on historically relevant topics in a History Spotlight feature (http:// www.apadivisions.org/division-54/publications/newsletters/). In addition, there are archival materials such as presidential addresses, conference programs, minutes from executive board meetings, and summaries of activities during the terms of presidents of SPP from 1969 to 1989 in Recollections (http://www.apadivisions.org/ division54/about/history/recollections.pdf). Many of these materials are accessible on the SPP Web site (http://www.apadivisions.org/ division-54/). Importantly, many of the individuals involved in the early days of JPP and the SPP remain actively engaged in the field and can provide first-hand information about events that shaped our field. The first two papers in the Historical Analysis series appear in the current issue of JPP. Two classic and often cited papers by psychologists from the 1960s—Jerome Kagan’s paper in the American Journal of Diseases of Children (Kagan, 1965) describing the connections being made between psychology and pediatrics as a “marriage” and Logan Wright’s (1967) paper in American Psychologist “The pediatric psychologist: A role model”—are analyzed by Genik, McMurtry, and Yen (2014). This article is unique in analyzing and interpreting these two papers from an integrative historical perspective and including an interview with Kagan to further amplify their argument. The authors show how these two papers reflected the gestalt of their time, when increasing attention was being paid to children in our society in general, advances in medicine were remarkable, public recognition of psychology was increasing, and there was, in general, growing appreciation of empirical research. While these two papers were “seeded” at an opportune 1 Interested authors should refer to the Instructions to Authors for specific details about preparing Historical Analysis papers.

I am delighted to be the new Editor of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP)! Because of the work of so many superb former editors, we begin 2013 with a healthy and vibrant journal, with so much to look forward to in the coming years. I am particularly grateful to Dennis Drotar and his editorial team for handing over a journal that has a high rate of submissions, a competitive rejection rate, and an excellent ‘‘time to first editorial decision.’’ I hope to continue to maintain this level of quality, while continuing to publish methodologically strong research articles. I am also pleased that the following individuals have agreed to be Associate Editors for the journal: Dean Beebe, John Lavigne, Tonya Palermo, Lori Stark, Ric Steele, and Tim Wysocki. We have already been working together as a team for a year (we began reviewing all newly submitted papers in January 2012), and I am delighted to have all of them on board. Also, I am particularly fortunate that Susan Wood has agreed to continue to serve as the Editorial Assistant for the journal. As any developmentally oriented scholar knows, healthy development consists of continuity and change. Applying these concepts to JPP, I seek to retain the strong tradition that JPP has established by continuing to highlight the best research in our field, including first-rate systematic reviews of such research (see new initiative in this area later in the text). In the context of such continuity, I also seek to help JPP grow in new directions, increasing its appeal and usefulness to the readership as well as its impact on the larger field of pediatric psychology. In this editorial, I provide my goal-oriented 5-year plan for JPP. I hope that when I write my closing editorial at the end of 2017, we will have accomplished these goals. Goal 1: Publish on Topical, Innovative, and Contemporary Issues in Pediatric Psychology

Various scientists have underscored the critical need for replication of research findings in the development of science, including behavioral science (Cohen, 1994; Hedges, 1987; Robinson & Levin, 1997; Shaver & Norton, 1980). However, replication of research in behavioral science in general and pediatric psychology in particular has been limited (Kline, 2004, 2009). My review of articles in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) for the past several years indicate that replications of research findings in our field are rare. There are several reasons for this: The editorial process for scholarly journals places a high premium on new and innovative research findings rather than replications. Grant review criteria used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that emphasize innovative research may also inhibit research replications. Although the reasons are understandable, the relative absence of replication limits the cumulative impact, generalizability, and ultimately the validity of science (Cohen, 1994; Robinson & Levin, 1997). To address the need for more frequent research replications in the field of pediatric psychology, the purpose of this editorial is to describe the importance of research replication, types and exemplars of study replication, issue a call for replication research, and provide guidance for authors in submitting replications to JPP.

The purpose of the present investigation was to identify the top 100 most highly cited "classic" articles in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology, from 1976 to 2006. The Cited Reference search option of the Web of Science(R) was used, which allows for identification of variations in citations. One-hundred and four classic articles ranging in citations from 46 to 192 (M = 71.66, SD = 31.15) were identified. These articles were found to be mostly applied research that focused predominantly on children across several age groups with chronic illness. Citation trends among the classics revealed an inverted-u shape relationship between year since publication and citations per year, which peaked around seven years after publication. The current findings highlight some of the influential works in the field, which have contributed to important advances not only the field of pediatric psychology but other fields as well.

External grant support has assumed increasing importance in the field of pediatric psychology. For example, during 2004, 41.5% of research articles published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology contained author acknowledgments noting that the research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and another 27.8% of the articles published acknowledged support from another federal agency or foundation. Thus, over two-thirds of research published in the Journal has endorsed support from external agencies. Although specific data are as of yet unavailable for 2005, it is suspected that external support for research articles published in 2005 will exceed that of 2004. Thus, investigator-initiated grants are driving research in pediatric psychology. In contrast, two decades ago little research

To identify historical trends in the field of pediatric psychology by examining the training origins of authors publishing in Journal of Pediatric Psychology since its formation in 1976. The researchers sampled four publication years (1976, 1986, 1996, and 2006) and recorded the authors of each published article. They obtained each author's doctoral training institution using information provided in the article, the American Psychological Association Membership Directory, or the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database and counted authorship totals for each institution in each year. Four institutions (Case Western Reserve University, University of Iowa, University of Kansas, and Purdue University) produced authorship entries in 3 of the 4 years sampled. The number of articles being published, the number of authors per article and the number of institutions consistently increased. The current study provided a historical perspective on graduate training and scholarly productivity in the field of pediatric psychology. Future research should investigate interesting trends revealed, such as how core groups of pediatric psychology scholars have contributed to the notable growth in institutions, specific programs within institutions, and authors published over the last 30 years.

Beginning with this issue of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP), we are re-activating the Pioneers in Pediatric Psychology series. From 2000 to 2002, during Anne Kazak’s editorial term, four ‘‘pioneers’’ wrote articles for JPP where they reflected on their careers in pediatric psychology and their contributions to the conceptual development, research, and practice of our field (Drotar, 2001; Mesibov, 2002; Routh, 2000; Walker, 2000). Because these articles serve an important historical and archival function for the Society of Pediatric Psychology, it became clear that this would be a valuable series to reactivate. Thus, we asked Phyllis Magrab to submit an article for this series, and her contribution appears in this issue of the journal. As you read her observations of pediatric psychology from the early years of the Society and over time in the field, the importance of documenting the history and learning from such pioneering pediatric psychologists is emphasized. When we invite authors to prepare a manuscript for this series, we provide guidance via a list of potential concepts for them to consider. Specifically, we ask authors to use relevant life experiences to set the context for identifying needs or issues related to the field of pediatric psychology. We also ask them to discuss what the field was like at the time that they entered it and to reflect on how pediatric psychology has changed and what they believe to have caused such changes. One of our primary goals is for these articles to be useful to early career professionals and to those currently in training in pediatric psychology. Thus, we pose a series of training-relevant questions for ‘‘pioneers’’ to consider as they formulate their comments: What were the key milestones of your career and what decisions did you make along the way? What insights might you offer to early career professionals or those still in training as they consider what directions to pursue, settings to consider working in, or opportunities to take advantage of or avoid? How were you mentored and how did this influence how you mentor others? What lessons have you learned during your years in this field? How and in what contexts did you interact with others in the field and how did these interactions influence you? Also, discuss how interactions with those from other disciplines influenced you. What are the values you find central to your research/ practice in pediatric psychology? What are important issues that currently face our field? What are likely directions for the future? How do you hope the field will evolve over time? What needs to happen for this evolution to occur?

To empirically examine whether research published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) guides research both within and outside the field of pediatric psychology. Articles published in JPP from 2000 to 2004 were evaluated to determine the frequency with which articles in JPP from 2000 influenced subsequent research. Citation rates by other journals were also examined. Articles in JPP from 2000 were frequently cited in subsequent research, but authors rarely cited previous research as being instrumental in the development of their study design. Articles in JPP from 2000 were also frequently cited by outside journals. Specifically, journals classified as "medical and medical subspecialties" had the highest rates of citing JPP articles. The finding that JPP is cited both within JPP and other journals provides further evidence that pediatric psychology is a thriving interdisciplinary field.

The Journal of Pediatric Psychology aims to publish high-quality, original research; integrated reviews of the literature; case studies; and commentaries that are associated with the theory, research, and professional practice in pediatric psychology. In this effort, it is my goal as well as that of the Associate Editors to improve the readability and quality of submitted manuscripts and to enhance the peer-review process. This editorial offers suggestions to authors on writing for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology, reporting statistical information for the Journal, and responding to reviewers’ comments on articles that already have been submitted and have made it through the first stage of the review process. Much of this editorial contains anecdotal information that I have gleaned from my service as an Editorial Board member for this journal as well as several others in our field, the mentoring of numerous graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty in the writing process, and finally during my tenure as Editor of this journal as well as another journal in the field. Thus, I wish to point out that my words of advice are based on case study and clinical wisdom, as well as recent published literature in the area, rather than on empirical data. There are available to the interested reader some worthwhile sources (Browner, 1999; Cummings & Rivara, 2002; Drotar, 2000a, b; Kazdin, 1995; Williams, 1999), including the venerable Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, fifth edition (American Psychological Association, 2001), which I always recommend for review to any author regardless of the author’s experience with manuscript preparation. Initiating the editorial process, your manuscript arrives at the editorial office and you as the corresponding author are notified of its arrival and assignment to reviewers. We attempt to have a manuscript reviewed by at least three reviewers, one of whom must be on our Editorial Board. Manuscripts are always read blind: The reviewers do not know the identity of the author and the author does not know the reviewers. It should be noted that a primary intent of the review of a manuscript is to enhance the quality of the work and to provide helpful and constructive advice to authors. The reviewer is asked to return a written critique to the Editor as well as a recommendation on the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology within approximately one month after receipt of the manuscript. Finally, either the Editor or the Associate Editor collates the reviews and makes a final decision with regard to the disposition of the manuscript, and a detailed letter is prepared for the author. Reviewers of the Journal are not compensated financially for their efforts, and given the extensive time involved in this process, I have always been impressed with the meticulous and detailed reviews that are provided to authors by members of our Editorial Board as well as from our esteemed colleagues who serve as ad hoc reviewers. Authors can learn much from the peer review process that may frequently provide them with significant insights into refining their research or launching the next stage of a program of research. It is a process that I have come to value and respect over the years in my roles as a reviewer, author, and more recently editor.