Abstract
The experience of editorial responsibility can produce many surprises, both pleasant and unpleasant, and some of these are outlined. The author also responds to Reis and Stiller (this issue), who carefully document how the length and complexity of articles published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology have increased over the past three decades and attribute this growth to the increasing sophistication and depth of psychological research Although this characterization is surely correct about much modern research in psychology, some articles may begetting longer for the wrong reasons, including obsessiveness and pseudosophistication. He reviewers and editor of our journals need to distinguish between articles that are truly sophisticated or are breaking new ground and those that are obsessively detailed reports of trivial, albeit complicated, variations on the same old theme. To make this distinction wisely, we may need to read and evaluate research within a broader frame of reference than is customary.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
