JCCP between 1993 and 2000:
Looking Back and Looking Ahead
Peter B. Smith, Charles Harb,
University of Sussex
Walter J. Lonner
Western Washington University
Fons J. R. van de Vijver
Tilburg University
Evenmorefinal version, 30 August 2000
2
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.
One can also say with certainty that it has yet to be determined exactly how and when
culture and ethnicity affect human thought and behavior. For many years cross-cultural
psychologists have developed models, frameworks, and a host of theoretical propositions, to
help explain these connections. Other culturally-oriented psychologists have similarly
developed perspectives on the role that culture plays in human activity. In fact, one of the
most striking developments in the past decade has been the growth in number of individuals
who represent different epistemological perspectives in the area of psychology and culture.
Thus we have, in addition to cross-cultural psychology, the orientations of cultural
psychology, indigenous psychology, and psychological anthropology. The common
denominator in these approaches, which have fuzzy boundaries between them, consists of
2
3
making attempts to explain how and why behavior appears in specific cultural contexts. With
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 culturecomparative perspective, which is largely, but not exclusively, featured by the classical crosscultural 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
A content analysis of papers accepted and rejected by JCCP over the past seven years
is presented; it parallels an earlier analysis of papers published between 1970 and 1993 (Öngel
& Smith, 1994). The analysis presented here covers papers published or accepted for
publication by mid 2000, in order to address two key questions. Firstly, what evidence is there
that the papers published in JCCP reflect an increasingly broad cross-cultural focus? More
specifically, is there an increase in the locations of authors, the spread of topics, the research
sites and populations sampled? Whether such changes have occurred is partly dependent on
3
4
the types of submissions JCCP receives and partly on the decisions made 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 nonaccepted 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 19801993, 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 4
5
We next consider what change there has been in the types of study submitted and
accepted. A distinction is made between studies reporting cross-national comparisons, studies
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 singlesample 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 A third issue to be explored is whether the range of author locations has increased.
Table 3 shows a large decrease since the previous survey in the percentage of authors located
in the United States. This need not necessarily imply a lesser involvement of US researchers
in studies published in JCCP. The decrease could equally well be explained by the increased
frequency of teams of co-authors from within and outside of the United States. Authors from
almost the same eight nations continue to predominate, with Netherlands replacing UK. The
top eight nations accounted for 82% of all authors in the earlier period, declining to 67% in
the last seven years. This decline is largely attributable to a 15% reduction in US authorship,
to some extent balanced by a 9% increase in authorship by researchers from the infrequently
represented nations that are shown at the bottom of the table. The changes in authorship
appear at least in part to be attributable to quality of the manuscripts and editorial policy, since
the acceptance rate for authors at different locations shows a clear pattern. There is a
significant difference for acceptance rates for the top eight nations compared with rates for the
next most strongly represented group of nations (United Kingdom to Russia) and for the least
5
6
frequent group (Chi square = 11.17, df = 2, p < .01). Authors in the middle group of nations
achieved a higher acceptance rate. Papers from authors from the United States and Australia
were more frequently rejected, as well as those from the least frequently represented 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
6
7
theoretical formulations that are explicitly cross-cultural (such as individualism-collectivism), rather than drawn from some other area of psychological theory.
- Table 5 about here 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
7
8
This paper has provided a brief analysis of recent trends in the submission of
manuscripts to JCCP, together with data pertaining to patterns of acceptance and rejection.
We have also included information about types of study, authors, and the participants sampled
in the various research projects. During the period covered we have seen a striking increase in
submitted manuscripts as well as trends some of which are stable over time while 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.
Some years ago, the intent and scope of JCCP’s original masthead policy was
expanded, to show that our interest in helping to explain the connection between culture and
the thought and behavior of individual was broad-banded. This expansion included the
following sentence: “Submitted manuscripts may report results from (…) types of research
concerning the ways in which culture (and related concepts such as ethnicity) affect the
thinking and behavior of individuals as well as how individual thought and behavior define
and reflect aspects of culture.” (quoted from the journal’s cover; the text can also be found at
the journal’s Internet site: http://www/iaccp.org/JCCP/jccp.html). This expanded version of
our original intent has not succeeded in attracting many strong manuscripts from those who
seem to identify with cultural psychology. Quite to the contrary, as our analyses show, there
has been a substantial increase in cross-national comparisons. Different explanations for this
can be envisaged. It is not a likely explanation that this evaluation follows the formulation of
the new masthead policy too soon, as prior to the modification of the masthead policy cultural
psychological manuscripts were already being submitted and published. It is more likely that
within the overall increase in cross-cultural studies during the past decade (among which are
8
9
many comparative studies), JCCP has received a relatively larger proportion of submissions
based on comparative studies. In the eyes of potential authors, JCCP was and apparently still
is the journal of culture-comparative studies. Assuming that the quality of these manuscripts
has not decreased while their quantity has increased, they have inevitably taken a larger share
of the journal’s available space.
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;
9
10
yet, if JCCP aims to represent all major areas of cross-cultural research, we have made some
progress in this direction.
It is notable that manuscripts coming from the more applied domains of cross-cultural
psychology, such as acculturation, counseling and organizational psychology often do not
survive the review process. An important reason may be the emphasis on fact-finding and the
atheoretical nature that often characterizes these papers. It is encouraging that submitted
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 cross-cultural psychology. Finally, we will invite crosscultural researchers to submit reviews or reports of recently completed studies.
It is important for professional journals to monitor trends and to report them for the
benefit of their readers. This should be, and usually is, a job that is done by the editors of such
publications. It is even more important to do this for JCCP. As the flagship journal of the
modern development of cross-cultural psychology, analyses of various patterns should give us
some solid insight into where have been and what may lie ahead, as this area of psychology
continues to flourish and to define its core concerns.
10
11
Reference
Öngel, U. & Smith, P. B. (1994). Who are we and where are we going? JCCP
approaches its 100th.issue. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 25-53.
11
12
Table 1: Country of Residence of Participants Sampled in Research Projects
Percentage
accepted
1993-2000
24.8
10.0
5.3
4.5
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.0
Percentage
rejected
1993-2000
27.6
9.8
6.5
2.9
1.5
1.8
7.6
2.5
Percentage
published
1980-1993
28.0
5.6
6.3
3.8
3.4
5.8
5.6
3.1
India
Taiwan
Korea
Netherlands
Italy
Philippines
Russia
Turkey
Mexico
Finland
Singapore
Nepal
Indonesia
Greece
Poland
South Africa
Spain
Brazil
2.3
2.3
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
0.0
0.7
2.2
0.7
1.8
0.7
2.5
0.0
1.1
0.7
0.7
3.3
2.2
0.4
2.5
2.2
1.6
1.4
1.1
1.6
0.0
1.4
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.4
2.2
0.0
0.9
Othera
15.4
15.6
18.1
Frequency
468
825
552
Country
United States
China (incl. Hong Kong)
Japan
Canada
Germany
Israel
Australia
United Kingdom
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.
a
Czechia, Estonia, France, Hungary, Sweden (3 each), Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Denmark, Ghana, Jamaica, Malaysia, Norway, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, UAE (2
each), Angola, Argentina, Barbados, Belgium, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Costa Verde,
Croatia, Egypt, El-Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Grenada, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Kuwait,
12
13
Mozambique, New Guinea, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Palestine, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal,
Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Trinidad, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe (1 each)
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
Note. Only 1/3 of rejected manuscripts were sampled. Frequencies in the rejected column
have been multiplied by three to estimate full sample values. The categories ‘within-nation’
and ‘between-nation’ have been used, due to the absence in many papers of evidence as to
whether a sample might be considered monocultural or multicultural.
13
14
Table 3: Location of All Authors of Accepted and Rejected Manuscripts
Percentage
accepted
1993-2000
Percentage Percentage
rejected
published
1993-2000 1980-1993
United States
China (incl. Hong Kong)
Canada
Japan
Israel
Australia
Germany
Netherlands
34.2
7.5
5.0
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.1
3.9
40.2
8.3
4.6
4.6
2.1
8.3
1.2
2.1
49.1
4.6
5.8
3.1
5.4
6.6
4.0
2.6
United Kingdom
India
New Zealand
Korea
Taiwan
Turkey
Italy
Mexico
Finland
Poland
Nepal
Russia
3.6
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.9
2.9
1.2
1.7
2.1
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.8
1.8
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.2
0.6
0.0
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.
1 Brazil, France, Hungary, Norway, Philippines, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden (3
each), Bangladesh, Czechia, Greece, Indonesia, S. Africa, (2 each), Angola, Argentina,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Estonia, Ethiopia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Ghana, Jamaica,
Kenya, Oman, Namibia, Portugal, Slovenia, UAE, Uganda, Venezuela, Zimbabwe (1 each)
14
15
15
16
Table 4: Author Locations for Three Types of Published Studies
United States
Percentage
single
sample
5.2
Percentage Percentage
within
between
nation
nations
21.6
85
Country
total
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
Frequency
29
72
253
354
16
17
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
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.
17
18
Table 6: Composition of Samples in Accepted and Rejected Manuscripts
Percentage Percentage
published
rejected
1993-2000 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
Note. Non-empirical studies are omitted. Only 1/3 of rejected manuscripts were sampled.
Frequencies in the rejected column have been multiplied by three to represent the full sample.
18