Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Using highly cited papers in twelve top journals in general psychology as proxies for big ideas, we employed a mixed methods bibliometric analysis to explore overall trends as well as differences among journals related to authorship, interdisciplinary and multi-institutional collaboration, type of article, type of review or research methodology, topic scope and domain, as well as other article features. To investigate whether these bibliometric attributes have changed significantly over time, we compared a historical sample comprised of articles from each journal’s entire publishing lifespan to a contemporary sample limited to the last ten years (2015–2024). Results showed significant differences between journals as well as between historical and contemporary samples on all dimensions in the analysis. Articles in the historical sample had significantly higher citation counts, page counts, and reference counts, while articles in the contemporary sample had longer titles and more authors, institutions, disciplines, and domains. Qualitative findings from reflexive thematic and textual analysis highlighted the breadth of coverage of psychological domains, the prominence of review, theory, and methodological articles, and the lack of qualitative research among the most-cited articles in general psychology. Implications for a more interdisciplinary and pluralistic psychology are discussed.

Keywords

bibliometrics mixed methods research psychology interdisciplinary research scholarly communications

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anseel

Duyck

De Baene

Brysbaert

(2004). Journal impact factors and self-citations: Implications for psychology journals. American Psychologist, 59(1), 49–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.49

Anvari

Alsalti

Oehler

L. A.

Hussey

Elson

Arslan

R. C.

(2025). Defragmenting psychology. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(5), 836–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02138-0

Arnett

J. J.

(2008). The neglected 95%: Why american psychology needs to become less american. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311

Benjamin

L. T.

Baker

D. B.

(2009). Recapturing a context for psychology: The role of history. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 4(1), 97–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01097.x

Braat

Engelen

van Gemert

Verhaegh

(2020). The rise and fall of behaviorism: The narrative and the numbers. History of Psychology, 23(3), 252–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000146

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Chubin

D. E.

Porter

A. L.

Rossini

F. A.

(1984). Citation classics analysis: An approach to characterizing interdisciplinary research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 35(6), 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350608.

10.

Cobb

C. L.

Crumly

Montero-Zamora

Schwartz

S. J.

Martínez

C. R. J.

(2024). The problem of miscitation in psychological science: Righting the ship. American Psychologist, 79(2), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001138

11.

Davidson

I. J.

(2018). The (ab)normal-social-personality catena: Exploring the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology during the interwar years. History of Psychology, 21(2), 151–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000090

12.

de Oliveira

O. J.

da Silva

F. F.

Juliani

Barbosa

L. C. F. M.

Nunhes

T. V.

(2019). Bibliometric method for mapping the state-of-the-art and identifying research gaps and trends in literature: An essential instrument to support the development of scientific projects. In Kunosic

Zerem

& E.

(Eds.), Scientometrics recent advances. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.85856

13.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0403_1

14.

Feilzer

M. Y.

(2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809349691

15.

Godin

(2006). On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 68(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0086-0

16.

Gross

J. J.

(2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

17.

Guilera

Barrios

Gómez-Benito

(2013). Meta-analysis in psychology: A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 94(3), 943–954. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0761-2

18.

Guilford

J. P.

(1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487

19.

Gurung

R. A. R.

Hackathorn

Enns

Frantz

Cacioppo

J. T.

Loop

Freeman

J. E.

(2016). Strengthening introductory psychology: A new model for teaching the introductory course. American Psychologist, 71(2), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040012

20.

Gusenbauer

(2024). Beyond Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science: An evaluation of the backward and forward citation coverage of 59 databases' citation indices. Research Synthesis Methods, 15(5), 802–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1729

21.

Haslam

Ban

Kaufmann

Loughnan

Peters

Whelan

Wilson

(2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76(1), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1892-8

22.

Henriksen

(2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980-2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

23.

Hennessey

B. A.

Amabile

T. M.

(2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416

24.

Hibberd

F. J.

Petocz

(2022). Realistically re-envisioning general psychology and its relation to specialization. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 43(2), 85–110.

25.

Hartley

(2016). Classic articles in psychology in the Science Citation Index expanded: A bibliometric analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 107(4), 768–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12163

26.

Holt-Lunstad

Smith

T. B.

Baker

Harris

Stephenson

(2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352

27.

Katzko

M. W.

(2006). A study of the logic of empirical arguments in psychological research: “The automaticity of social behavior” as a case study. Review of General Psychology, 10(3), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.3.210

28.

Ferrara

Radicchi

Flammini

(2015). Defining and identifying sleeping beauties in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(24), 7426–7431. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1424329112

29.

Kelley

L. P.

Blashfield

R. K.

(2009). An example of psychological science's failure to self-correct. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015287

30.

Kelly

(2016). Using hermeneutics to inform bibliometric research: A mixed methods approach. Qualitative & Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 5(3), 627–641.

31.

Klein

R. A.

Vianello

Hasselman

Adams

B. G.

Adams

R. B.

Alper

Aveyard

Axt

J. R.

Babalola

M. T.

Bahník

Š.

Batra

Berkics

Bernstein

M. J.

Berry

D. R.

Bialobrzeska

Binan

E. D.

Bocian

Brandt

M. J.

Busching

… Nosek

B. A.

(2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918810225

32.

Kliegl

Bates

(2011). International collaboration in psychology is on the rise. Scientometrics, 87(1), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0299-0

33.

Koch

(1993). Psychology' or 'the psychological studies. American Psychologist, 48(8), 902–904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.8.902

34.

Lafit

Adolf

J. K.

Dejonckheere

Myin-Germeys

Viechtbauer

Ceulemans

(2021). Selection of the number of participants in intensive longitudinal studies: A user-friendly shiny app and tutorial for performing power analysis in multilevel regression models that account for temporal dependencies. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920978738

35.

Lin

(2025). Exponential authorship inflation in neuroscience and psychology from the 1950s to the 2020s. American Psychologist, 80(2), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001216

36.

Malich

Christoph

R.-S.

(2022). Metascience is not enough – a plea for psychological humanities in the wake of the replication crisis. Review of General Psychology, 26(2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680221083876

37.

Morgan

D. L.

(2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733

38.

Nabavi

(2024). Evaluation of clinical psychology research through bibliometric and altmetric analyses. Current Psychology, 43(31), 25996–26006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06277-x

39.

Piotrowski

(2016). Mapping the research domain in the field of applied psychology: A bibliometric analysis of the emerging literature. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 11.

40.

Reis

H. T.

Gable

S. L.

(2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.01.001

41.

Robins

R. W.

Gosling

S. D.

Craik

K. H.

(1999). An empirical analysis of trends in psychology. American Psychologist, 54(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.117

42.

Robins

R. W.

Gosling

S. D.

Craik

K. H.

(2000). Trends in psychology: An empirical issue. American Psychologist, 55(2), 276–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.2.276

43.

Robinson

T. E.

Berridge

K. C.

(2003). Addiction. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 25–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145237

44.

Rushton

J. P.

Roediger

H. L.

(1978). An evaluation of 80 psychology journals based on the Science Citation Index. American Psychologist, 33(5), 520–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.5.520

45.

Schneider

Shiffrin

R. M.

(1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1

46.

Siddaway

A. P.

Wood

A. M.

Hedges

L. V.

(2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

47.

Simonton

D. K.

(2000). Methodological and theoretical orientation and the long-term disciplinary impact of 54 eminent psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 4(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.4.1.13

48.

Singer

(2023). Development of three psychology sub-disciplines over the past 30 years: A citation analysis. Review of General Psychology, 27(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680221133785

49.

Slife

B. D.

Gantt

E. E.

(1999). Methodological pluralism: A framework for psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(12), 1453–1465. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199912)55:12<1453::aid-jclp4>3.0.co;2-c

50.

Slife

Williams

(1995). Science and human behavior. What's behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences, Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483327372.n6

51.

Sommet

Weissman

D. L.

Cheutin

Elliot

A. J.

(2023). How many participants do I need to test an interaction? conducting an appropriate power analysis and achieving sufficient power to detect an interaction. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231178728

52.

Tashakkori

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042

53.

Teo

(2017). From psychological science to the psychological humanities: Building a general theory of subjectivity. Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000132

54.

Thalmayer

A. G.

Toscanelli

Arnett

J. J.

(2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is american psychology becoming less american? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622

55.

Tur-Porcar

Mas-Tur

Merigó

J. M.

Roig-Tierno

Watt

(2018). A bibliometric history of the journal of psychology between 1936 and 2015. Journal of Psychology, 152(4), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1440516

56.

Vaidyanathan

Vrieze

S. I.

Iacono

W. G.

(2015). The power of theory, research design, and transdisciplinary integration in moving psychopathology forward. Psychological Inquiry, 26(3), 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.1015367

57.

Wachsmann

M. S.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Hoisington

Gonzales

Wilcox

Valle

Aleisa

(2019). Collaboration patterns as a function of research experience among mixed researchers: A mixed methods bibliometric study. Qualitative Report, 24(12), 2954–2976. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3852

58.

Williams

K. D.

(2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085641

59.

Watson

J. B.

(1913). Psychology as the behaviourist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428

60.

Yanchar

S. C.

Slife

B. D.

Warne

(2008). Critical thinking as disciplinary practice. Review of General Psychology, 12(3), 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.3.265

61.

Yang

Chiu

(2009). Mapping the structure and dynamics of psychological knowledge: Forty years of APA journal citations (1970-2009). Review of General Psychology, 13(4), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017195

Toward an Interdisciplinary and Pluralistic Psychology: Lessons from a Mixed-Methods Bibliometric Review

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References