harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/20/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Mon, 19 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15 Electronic Journals (R Jansen) Archives and organization: Response to W Gardner (D Stodolsky) Consensus Journals (D Stodolsky) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Editorial Comment: The following observations about the relative advantages of electronic media over print pertain only to static texts, presumably available in print first. Psycoloquy is an extremely rapid and global INTERACTIVE medium. The dynamic potential of this "Skywriting" is a medium unto itself and has possibilities that one cannot even dream of in the print media. We agree, however, about the desirability of hypermedia, and as announced earlier, we eventually hope to implement this with the help of new software from Bellcore. -- Stevan Harnad] From: "Bob.Jansen" <jansen@syd.dit.csiro.au> Subject: Electronic Journals Although the techniques we are proposing are currently applicable to static text only (ie. paper form research papers, reports etc.) the ultimate goal would be to allow a researcher to represent their conceptual space in a computer assisted environment, and then to generate a skeleton paper, or paper outline, by selecting the subset of the conceptual space that represents the knowledge they wish to impart via the paper representation. We are assuming no technical restrictions now, and probably are living in the 21st century. For static journals with a short cycle time, ie forums of this sort, the author could decide to publish the text, underlying data, and/or the conceptual space representations. The combinations of all three facilitates hyppothesis testing by other 'experts' of the authors conceptual space and opens up for scrutiny the grasp the author has of the domain, the processing applied to form conclusions, etc. The combined contributions of an author over time would form an extremly valuable asset, namely an animated representation of the growth of the conceptual space. This might be viewed in a similar vein to an artist's retrospective exhibition, where the analogous conceptual representation is displayed. An example of the usefulness of this approach would be to see an retrospective of cubism, showing the development of cubism from its infant stage to the complex forms of say the latter Picaso works. This would have a side benefit of being an extremely worthwhile educational resource. bob jansen ------------------------------ From: David Stodolsky <david%harald.ruc.dk@pucc> Subject: Archives and organization: Response to W.P. Gardner DSS> If we take maximum advantage of the capabilities of network technology, DSS> central organization could be limited to the registration of user names. WPG> There is another place where central decisions could be made: the WPG> development of international standards for scientific documents and WPG> related services. The registration of user names is a technically complex enterprise, if the process is to uphold the requirements of protection and responsibility that scientific communication is to ideally satisfy. It may also mean coming into conflict with "national security interests" in certain states that presume to restrain the free exchange of information and cryptographic methods. Standardization of these features is crucial if the relations among scientists are to be regulated appropriately. Standards for graphics and data interchange are important, but is this a function for a society per se? A scientific society should have input to such standard setting, but I hardly see this as a central function. As things stand right now, the social incentives for data exchange are such that very little of it occurs (Sterling, T. D. & Weinkam, J. J. [1990]. _Communications of the ACM_, _33_(8), 113-119), and standardization in the format for such data are not going to change this. Further, their are real impediments; the Group on Economic Issues of the International Council for Scientific and Technical Information states, "We have found in the United States that intellectual property rights constitute an expensive and perplexing barrier to sharing of scientific and technical information collections (Group on Economic Issues. [1990, January]. _ICSTI Forum_, _1_[1], 3)." DSS> Counteracting commercial interests requires a massive, but DSS> decentralized investment. Democratization of scientific communication DSS> is a solution to the domination of science by outside interests and DSS> could lead to the achievement of real scientific freedom. WPG> I agree with the spirit, but what, in practice, do you mean by WPG> democratization? I think we need to give careful thought to the issue WPG> of decentralization & commercialization. They may well go WPG> hand-in-hand. Can you propose a decentralized structure that is not a WPG> market and nevertheless works efficiently to store and distribute WPG> documents? Democratization means each person has fundamental communication rights (Stodolsky, D. [1985]. Information systems for self-management. _Human Systems_ Management_, _5_, 39-45; Stodolsky, D. [1985]. The complete self-management information system [Letter]. _Human Systems Management_, _5_, 261-262.) that include, especially for a scientist, the right to publish. Further, decisions with regard to the structure of the communication system are defined one-man one-vote, not by commercial considerations (one-dollar one-vote). Gift exchange seems to be a more appropriate model for scientific communication than a market (Hagstrom, W. [1965]. _The Scientific Community_. New York: Basic Books). David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38 Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01 ------------------------------ From: David Stodolsky <david%harald.ruc.dk@pucc> Subject: Consensus Journals Consensus Journals: Invitational journals based upon peer consensus David S. Stodolsky Roskilde University Centre DK-4000 Roskilde david@ruc.dk Abstract Computer networks open new possibilities for scientific communication in terms of quality, efficiency, and rapidity. Consensus journals have the economy of invitational journals and the objectivity of journals based upon the peer review. That is, all articles are published and the reader benefits from article selection based upon impartial refereeing. An additional benefit of consensus journals is that the negotiation process, that typically occurs prior to publication, is automated, thus saving efforts of participants. Readers submit reviews that evaluate articles on agreed dimensions. A statistical procedure is used to identify the most knowledgeable representative of each consensus position and these persons are invited to submit articles that justify the review judgments they have submitted. A major advantage of this approach is the ability to develop reputation without article publication. The approach includes a protection mechanism based upon pseudonyms, that substitutes for the protection of anonymity typical with scientific journals. This reduces the potential for irresponsible behavior and facilitates reputation development. The level of quality enhancement is superior to that achievable with anonymous peer review. Eliminating the editor and the delay associated with conventional refereeing makes message quality enhancement available in message systems for educational and business environments. ________________________________________________________________________________ This document has been prepared for electronic publication. Underscore characters indicate the start and end of italicized character sequences. Figures and tables assume a monospace font. Citation: Stodolsky, D. S. (1990). Consensus Journals: Invitational journals based upon peer consensus. _Datalogiske Skrifter_ (Writings on Computer Science). No. 29 / 1990. Roskilde University Centre, Institute of Geography, Socioeconomic Analysis, and Computer Science. (ISSN 0109-9779-29) ________________________________________________________________________________ Invitational journals can be distinguished from typical scholarly journals by the sequence of events that results in publication of an article. The sequence of events with a typical journal starts with the writing of an article. The article is then transmitted to an editor and refereed. After a successful review, often contingent upon negotiated revisions, the article is published and read. With invitational journals, however, events are reversed. The tentative decision to publish an author is made first, often based upon the reading of previous work by that author. Then negotiation between the editor and author occurs, or there is informal refereeing of a proposal, which if successful, results in the writing of an article. The great advantage of this second sequence -- read, negotiate, write -- is that almost every article written gets published. The disadvantage is that selection of authors is somewhat arbitrary and there is no way an unknown author can get published. The objective of this article is to outline a method of scientific communication that has the economy of invitational journals and the objectivity of journals based upon the peer review. These self-edited journals will be called _consensus journals_ in order to distinguish them from conventional invitational journals. Any reader of an article in a consensus journal can act as a referee. Assume, for simplicity, that referees send reviews to a mediator. At a deadline, the mediator performs calculations and issues invitations to the referees who have been selected as new authors (Figure 1). These calculations are implicit negotiations, that is, they predict which persons would have been selected to respond to the reviewed article if referees has actually negotiated and reached a consensus. One benefit of consensus journals is that the negotiation process is automated, thus saving participant effort. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ R: Review ------- M: Invitation ------- | Read |----------->| Calc. |--------------->| Write |-----------> ------ ------- ------- R: Article | | R: Renege R = Referee Calc. = Calculate consensus | M = Mediator V -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Figure 1. Simplified cycle of operation for a consensus journal The simplified cycle of operation for a consensus journal shows actions in boxes and messages as arrows. In this simplified cycle, referees invited to publish (and justify the reviews they have submitted) have a choice of submitting their article by a deadline or reneging on the promise implied by their review. This simplified cycle of operation assumes, additionally, that consensus positions can be calculated and that published articles are retained indefinitely. Eliminating these assumptions requires a more articulated cycle of operation and additional message types. Before considering a more articulated cycle of operation, however, it is necessary to note an important feature of peer review that contributes to impartial judgment. This feature is a protection mechanism, typically anonymity, that shields referees from pressures that might be associated with evaluation of a colleague. Further, names and affiliations of authors are often hidden from referees to ensure that only article content is the basis for evaluation. Protection can be alternatively be provided by a pseudonym system. This has the advantage of reducing opportunities for irresponsible behavior as compared to systems based upon anonymity (Stodolsky, 1990). It has a further advantage of permitting reputation development through the refereeing alone, thereby making it possible to establish a reputation without contributing articles. When there are multiple referees, it is important that their judgments are independent, so referee reports must not be made available until all have been submitted. This last requirement can be met by ensuring that reviews transmitted to the mediator are hidden until the deadline. The dynamics and implementation of protection systems are beyond the scope of this article, so only the necessity for the simultaneous release of information is addressed here. Definition of message types While in the simplest case, messages in the consensus journal environment consist of only articles and reviews (Stodolsky, 1990), considerations of effective negotiation and of storage management suggest defining additional message types. There are five types of messages transmitted in the consensus journal environment. _Article Articles, while shorter than those usually seen in conventional journals, will most often play the same role. However, it is quite possible to have an article in a consensus journal that is only a few lines long, and that can only be understood in connection with the review message it follows and its target article. _ Review Review messages must be distinguished from conventional reviews because they are characterized by a vector of numbers that summarize a reader's reaction to an article. If we think of articles as nodes in a graph or pages in a hypertext network, then review messages are the labels on arcs or links that connect the articles. Reviews can go beyond merely evaluating an article, by offering to provide new information that may be essential to support the target article's position. Review messages also serve as a commitment to deliver a justificationof the reader's judgment, if invited. _ Invitation Invitations are public, and therefore, impossible to refuse without some loss of reputation. This makes them somewhat different than invitations from an editor of a journal. In effect, the invitation says, "We offer you storage space for an article." Also , a person may post an invitation for themselves during the negotiation stage of review, if they feel confident they can support the position claimed in their review message. _ Cancellation It is possible for an author to cancel an article, thereby releasing the associated storage space. The article then goes off-line (i.e., "out of print") along with its reviews and the articles that were dependent upon it for their place in storage. This would typically occur during explicit negotiation after the author had seen the article's reviews. It could, however, occur much later, when a new criticism was delivered. _Withdrawal Finally, during explicit negotiations, a review may be withdrawn. This eliminates the referee from those prepared to respond to an invitation. Cycle of operation The sequence of events with a consensus journal is the same as with an invitational journal. The review method, however, involves the entire readership, or at least those who offer a judgment. New authors are then selected based upon the review judgements. While most articles will follow from reviews and be connected to their target articles, independent articles are also permitted. However, articles posted without consensus based invitations are less likely to be read and cannot be assumed to have support of other referees. If we assume that a consensus journal is already functioning, we can follow the events through a cycle of operation that starts with reading of an article. While it is not essential for smaller readerships, we assume that participants exchange information electronically. All readers are presented with a target article at the same time. A reader offers a review judgment in order to be considered for future authorship. The review message must be received before a certain deadline, say one week later. The review message consists of scores along several preselected dimensions. For instance, a scientific article is expected to be relevant, correct, and original. A more conversational approach might include the dimensions completeness, clarity, and appropriateness. At the deadline, the mediator runs a statistical procedure to determine if there are consensus positions among the referees. The most central referee from each of these positions is invited to submit a new article. These most central referees are also considered most knowledgeable, within the framework of cultural consensus theory. D'Andrade (1987) discusses the evidence supporting this view. Cultural consensus theory is based on the assumptions of common truth (i. e., there is a fixed answer pattern "applicable" to all referees), of local independence (i.e., the referee-dimension response variables satisfy conditional independence), and of homogeneity of items (i.e., each respondent has a fixed "cultural competence" over all dimensions) (Romney, Weller & Batchelder, 1986). Results can be obtained with as few as three respondents, but four are required if the significance of the results are to be calculated (i. e., a degree of freedom is then available in the statistical model) (Batchelder & Romney, 1988). A recent development in the model is the ability to identify two consensual groupings within the population of respondents (Romney, Weller & Batchelder, 1987) This is extremely helpful since it permits a minority to publicize their viewpoint under the same conditions as a majority. Cultural consensus theory assumes that we have no _a priori_ knowledge about referees, that is, they have no reputations. This is extremely valuable when a new topic comes up or when there are violation of assumptions required for calculations concerning a current article based upon previous information (Stodolsky, 1984b). Given that reputations have developed and assumptions are satisfied, however, the theory requires elaboration to be applied most effectively. Cultural consensus theory provides, in effect, a cross sectional estimation of competence. That is, given a sample of responses at a given moment, relative competence is estimated. On the other hand, given a performance history, Bayesian estimation can be used to assess the relative importance of different persons' judgments. That is, there are reputations that give information about relative competence independent of the current responses. This assumes stationarity, that is, that the same area of competence is required for correct response, and that responses are generated in the same manner (e. g., respondents continue to give honest answers). Both methods are based upon likelihood estimation, therefore, a combined theory should be achievable. The combined sources of information would likely make achieving an implicit consensus more frequent. The mediator issues an invitation report showing submitted judgments, the degree of consensus achieved, the number of consensus positions identified, degree of knowledge of each referee, and so on. If consensus has been reached, invited referees are expected to submit articles. Negotiation must proceed explicitly if no consensus can be identified (Figure 2). In that case, referees may look at the judgments submitted and decide if their positions have sufficient support. If not, they could reconsider their review judgments, and either revise them or withdraw from the review process. The author of an article might, on the basis of these judgments, cancel an article, thus avoiding potential reputation damaging criticism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ R: Review ------- M: Invitation ------- | Read |----------->| Calc. |--------------->| Write |-----------> ------ ------- ------- R: Article ~ | | R: Review | | M: No consensus | R: Renege | | | | V V ----------- R: Withdrawal | Reconsider|--------------> ----------- | | A: Cancelation | V Key A = Author M = Mediator Calc. = Calculate consensus R = Referee -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Figure 2. Cycle of operation for a consensus journal (A referee becomes an author only after a submitted article has been published by the mediator [not shown in figure]). Assuming that the article was not cancelled, the combined effects of withdrawal by referees with most deviant judgments and reconsideration by others would likely lead to consensus, particularly if the requirements for consensus were successively relaxed. This assumes that revision of judgments would be in the direction of dominant view points, a common finding. The result would be an invitation issued by the mediator to selected referees. Subsequent submission of an articles by selected referees and their publication by the mediator would complete the cycle of operation. The invitation report can guide negotiation when a consensus can not be identified. Individual invitation staging could proceed along with a relaxation of requirements for consensus. For instance, if the first round of reviews did not generate a consensus, referees could issue invitations to others (Table 1). If the second round of reviews did not generate a consensus, referees could issue self invitations (these would be acceptances for those who had received invitations), or perhaps, direct the invitations they had already received to others. Failure on the third round would permit these previously issued invitations to serve as a coordination mechanism. That is, certain referees would have indicated a readiness to respond and others would have rejected the option of authorship unsupported by a consensus. Thus, duplication of effort could be avoided by examining the ranking of persons in terms of the invitations received and accepted, and responding accordingly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message Level and (Receiver): Public Private (Readers) (Mediator) Stage of Process: Publication Article Refereeing Review(1) Invitation Report Reconsideration Review(2), Withdraw, Cancel, Invite Invitation Report Reconsideration Review(3), Withdraw, Cancel, Self invitation Invitation Report Submit Article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. Message level, receiver, and type, by stage of processing (assumes no consensus reached during negotiation) New articles are requested either by the mediator or by referees, if an author and referees follow negotiations to completion. New articles must be submitted before a deadline. At the deadline, the new articles received are published. This makes them available to the readership and completes the cycle of operation for a consensus journal. Thus in the simplest case, articles are read, reviews are transmitted, invitations are issued, and new articles are submitted in a timely manner. In the extended cycle, at least a single reconsideration or negotiation stage occurs during which a target article can be cancelled by its author and during which referees can withdraw. A failure to achieve consensus leads to explicit negotiation and options such as nonconsensus invitation. The extended negotiation option makes the consensus journal more similar to a conventional journal, because there is explicit negotiation prior to the writing of an article. The quality of a consensus journal can be assessed by the degree of consensus achieved. Readers might select only those articles resulting from a consensus-based invitation, thereby controlling the quality of articles they see. Rules of dialogue The rules of operation of a consensus journal can be thought of as specifying an action system, or language game, where the actions relate to the placement of articles in a network of interconnected nodes. Participants in the game try to maximize their influence. Reputation is a crucial resource in scientific argumentation (Smolensky, Fox, King, Lewis, 1988). Participants are expected to maximize this resource. While there may be other payoffs available within a given system, such as royalty payments, this discussion assumes only reputation maximization as an individual objective. here are several opportunities for reputation enhancement in the cycle of operation. Selection as an author is a major opportunity for reputation enhancement. However, refereeing also offers significant opportunities that are not available with conventional journals. Referees can commit themselves to delivering a rebuttal to an article and thereby improve their reputation (assuming they make good on their commitment given an opportunity). If an author examines the reviews an article receives and decides to cancel it before a rebuttal is written, the referees offering rebuttals would have their reputations enhanced, without any further risk or effort. With a consensus journal, the review message can be thought of as an offer to deliver a certain type of article before the deadline. Obviously, a review message that claims a target article is erroneous, and thereby offers to deliver a rebuttal, plays a different structural role in a debate than one that criticizes an article for not being original. Thus, reviews can have a great deal of structural impact and can express a level of commitment, which would not be relevant in an environment that limits referees to a gatekeeping role. Structural Aspects With electronically published documents, it is very desirable to structure interconnections so that retrieval is facilitated and the relevance of statements becomes clear (Smolensky, Fox, King, Lewis, 1988). Thus, review messages can deal not only with the quality of an article, but also its relationship to its target article. Explicit relationships among articles becomes more necessary as the size of articles decrease and number of articles increases. With conventional journals, reviews are used to determine whether or not an article should be published. The publication decision is not dominant with electronic media, however, since distribution constraints are greatly relaxed (Quarterman, 1990, p. 259; Stodolsky, in press). Because of this, the period during which an article remains on-line assumes importance, because storage is limited. It is in this connection that the reviews of articles and the relations between articles becomes critical. In the simplest case, an article that is found incorrect by an overwhelming consensus is cancelled by its author. Failure to cancel an the article results in a continuing devaluation of the author's reputation as more and more readers come to agree with the majority. In the case of conflicting consensus positions, a rebuttal claiming that a target article is flawed is explicitly linked to the target. Failure to rebut that claim in turn has much the same effect as an overwhelming consensus that the target article is incorrect. Most interactions, therefore, take place at the knowledge frontier, as various positions are argued. These interactions generate very "bushy" argument trees, that require sophisticated navigation strategies, if large amounts of effort are not to be expended unnecessarily (Stodolsky, 1984a). The trees are thinned in the process of argumentation. Positions that are sustained remain on-line until they are thoroughly integrated into summaries or overarching theories. Decentralization A central mediator has been assumed in this description to simplify explanation. There is no reason why the calculations necessary to select new authors could not be performed decentrally. In fact, this would be necessary if readers preferred different methods of calculation for author selection. Then coordination in the selection of new authors would be shifted from consensus calculation to collection of invitations. Various types of voting rules could be applied. Authors receiving the most invitations would then be expected to submit articles. Thus, decentralization leads to an integration of the two types of invitations (consensus and individual) already discussed. The task of protecting review judgments until the deadline is reached is another required function. It is necessary, for example, because analysis of earlier submitted judgments could permit a referee submitting at the last moment to simulate a competence that did not exist, thus violating assumptions of the model. Protection can, however, be achieved decentrally using cryptography, assuming a "beacon" that emits enciphering and deciphering keys at fixed intervals (Rabin, 1983). Use of cryptography would be necessary, in any case, to ensure the authenticity of messages. Summary A consensus journal requires mechanisms for both coordination and protection. In the simplest case, a mediator can provide these. This assumes protected channels of communication and a trusted mediator. Coordination is necessary to identify consensus positions and avoid duplication of effort. Protection of reviews is necessary to ensure that assumptions of models for evaluating expertise are not violated. This protection allows valid reputation development by both authors and referees. Such reputations can then be used to ensure effective allocation of expertise. The extension of review opportunities to the entire readership vastly extends the available field of expertise. This, combined with the effective allocation of expertise and coordination that eliminates duplication of effort, provide consensus journals with a significant advantage over current mechanisms for enhancement of message quality. References Batchelder, W. H. & Romney, A. K. (1988). Test theory without an answer key. _Psychometrika_, _53_(1), 71-92. D'Andrade, R. G. (1987). Modal response and cultural expertise. _American Behavioral Scientist_, _31_(2), 194-202. Quarterman, J. S. (1990). _The matrix: Computer networks and conferencing systems worldwide_. Bedford, MA: Digital Press. Rabin, M. (1983). Transaction protection by beacons. _Journal of Computer and Systems Science_, _27_(2), 256-267. Romney, A. K. , Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of culture and informant accuracy. _American Anthropologist_, _88_(2), 313-338. Romney, A. K. , Weller, S. C., & Batchelder, W. H. (1987). Recent applications of cultural consensus Theory. _American Behavioral Scientist_, _31_(2), 163-177. Smolensky, P., Fox, B., King, R., & Lewis, C. (1988). Computer-aided reasoned discourse or, how to argue with a computer. In R. Guindon (Ed.), _Cognitive science and its applications for human-computer interaction_. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stodolsky, D. (1984a). Commonalities amoung [sic] conferencing systems and their implication for marketing strategy. _Organisatoriske Fragmenter 1984_, _12_, 43-58. Stodolsky, D. (1984b, December). _Self-management of criticism in dialog: Dynamic regulation through automatic mediation_. Paper presented at the symposium Communicating and Contracts between people in the Computerized Society, Gothenburg University, Sweden. Stodolsky, D. S. (1990). Protecting expression in teleconferencing: Pseudonym-based peer review journals. _Canadian Journal of Educational Communication_, 19, 41-51. ([1989, May 9]. _Communication Research and Theory Network [CRTNET]_, No. 175 [Semi-final draft available by electronic mail from LISTSERV@PSUVM.BITNET at University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Speech Communication and COMSERVE@Vm.ecs.rpi.edu at Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Language, Literature, and Communication]) Stodolsky, D. S. (in press). Archiving secure interactions [Letter]. _Psychological Science_. ([1990, May 25]. Comments on Gardner's Electronic Archive by Stodolsky. _Psycoloquy_, _1_[8].) David S. Stodolsky Office: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 21 38 Department of Computer Science Home: + 45 31 55 53 50 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01 ------------------------------ PSYCOLOQUY is sponsored by the Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association (202) 955-7653 Co-Editors: (scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion) Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.) Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology Rutgers University Rutgers University Assistant Editors: Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli Psychology Department Psychology Department Princeton University Rutgers University End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest ******************************
harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15 Computer Surveys Reference Manager for LAN Request for Data ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rosenfel%nprdc.navy.mil@pucc (Paul Rosenfeld) Subject: Computer Surveys Our research group at the Navy Personnel R&D Center in San Diego has been looking at response differences between computer and pencil&paper surveys. The literature seems quite inconsistent-- sometimes more "honest" responding on computer, sometimes no differences, sometimes more impression management on computer (recent JAP article). The obvious-- computer creates anonymity which leads to more "honest" responding-- doesn't seem so obvious anymore. As there are many cognitive oriented psychologists who contribute to this group, I was wondering what other reasons there might be for response differences between computer and P&P. Please speculate, hypothesize or just plain guess. Thanks Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Personnel Research Psychologist ------------------------------ From: Joe Danks <@ksuvxa.kent.edu:JDANKS%KENTVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU> Subject: Reference Manager for LAN Reference Manager for a LAN: A request for information We have been investigating the possibility of including a reference manager on the department's LAN. However, commercial software vendors have typically responded that they do not have a network version nor do they intend to develop one in the near future. Have we missed a potential vendor? Have other departments developed their own solutions for data base management of references? Any information that can be provided would be greatly appreciated. Please reply to JDANKS@KENTVM. BITNET. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: hui%psych.toronto.edu@pucc Subject: Request for Data My colleague and I are doing some simulation studies on the effects of response sets on factor analytic results. To extend the generality of our findings, we would like to use some existing data that have been collected recently. If you have a data set that meets the following requirements, and are willing to share the information with us, please email me at hui@psych.toronto.edu. Your contribution will, of course, be duly acknowledged. - used a reasonably well-known personality instrument that has been demonstrated to be multidimensional; - your analysis of the data set also confirmed the existence of the various factors; - most respondents did not miss any items; and - the number of respondents is at least 10 times of that of items in the instrument. End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest ******************************
harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15 Assistant Professor, Univ. of Pennsylvania CNS Program at Boston University Hiring 2 Assistant Professors Correction CVNet- Two vision jobs graduate fellowships in cognitive science Tenure Track, Univ. of Nevada Assistant Professor, Yale University ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sparks@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (David Sparks) Subject: Assistant Professor, Univ. of Pennsylvania UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. The Department of Psychology intends to make an appointment at the assistant professor level in one of the following areas: neuroethology, animal behavior, animal learning, or biopsychology of motivation or learning. Individuals whose research combines more than one of these areas would be especially attractive. We seek candidates with demonstrated excellence in research and teaching. They should submit a vita, reprints and preprints, and a statement of research interests and teaching competence; they should also arrrange for 3 letters of recommendation to be sent. All materials should be sent by December 3, 1990 to Search Committee A, Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, 3815 Walnut St., Philadelphia, PA l9l04-6196. The University of Pennsylvania is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. ------------------------------ From: mike@park.bu.edu Subject: CNS Program at Boston University Hiring 2 Assistant Professors Boston University seeks two tenure track assistant or associate professors starting in Fall, 1991 for its M.A. and Ph.D. Program in Cognitive and Neural Systems. This program offers an intergrated curriculum offering the full range of psychological, neurobiological, and computational concepts, models, and methods in the broad field variously called neural networks, connectionism, parallel distributed processing, and biological information processing, in which Boston University is a leader. Candidates should have extensive analytic or computational research experience in modelling a broad range of nonlinear neural networks, especially in one or more of the areas: vision and image processing, speech and language processing, adaptive pattern recognition, cognitive information processing, and adaptive sensory-motor control Candidates for associate professor should have an international reputation in neural network modelling. Send a complete curriculum vitae and three letters of recommendation to Search Committee, Cognitive and Neural Systems Program, Room 240, 111 Cummington Street, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, preferably by November 15, 1990 but no later than January 1, 1991. Boston University is an Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action employer. Boston University (617-353-7857) Email: mike@bucasb.bu.edu Smail: Michael Cohen 111 Cummington Street, RM 242 Center for Adaptive Systems Boston, Mass 02215 Boston University ------------------------------ From: D N ROBINSON <GU31%GUVM@pucc> Subject: Correction The assistant professorship available in the Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, becomes available as of Fall 1991, not Fall 1992. ------------------------------ From: Color and Vision Network <CVNET%YORKVM1@pucc> Subject: CVNet- Two vision jobs Cognitive Science/HCI Initiative 2 POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS Department of Psychology University of St Andrews and Centre for Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience University of Stirling Scotland, UK This is a collaborative project between the Department of Psychology, St Andrews and the CCCN, Stirling to develop a new computational model of visual word recognition. Post 1 (3 years, based at Department of Psychology, St Andrews University) will involve developing fresh perspectives on the neural modelling of visual word recognition from human experimentation. The data from these experiments will form the basis for the computational modelling in the project. Applicants should have experience in human experimentation in cognitive science or perceptual research, be well acquainted with the use of computers in experimentation, and have some knowledge of neural network research. Post 2 (2 years, based at Centre for Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience, Stirling University) will involve setting up and developing a new computational model of visual word recognition which combines the findings from St Andrews with fresh perspectives on neurocomputational processing. Applicants should have experience or interest in neural computation/connectionism and have a background in one or more of the following: computing science, psychology, mathematics, physics. Starting salary for each post will be on the 1A scale for research staff (up to UK pounds 18165 pa). Both posts are scheduled to start as soon as possible in 1991. Application forms and further particulars for both posts can be obtained from The Director of Personnel Services, College Gate, St Andrews University, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9AJ,,UK to whom completed applications forms together with a CV should be submitted to arrive no later than November 30th 1990. Further information can be obtained informally from: (Post 1) Dr Tim Jordan at St Andrews (tel.(44) 0334 76161, ext 7234) psstj@uk.ac.st-andrews (Post 2) Dr Leslie Smith at Stirling (tel. (44) 0786 67435, direct line) lss@uk.ac.stir.cs Previous applicants for these posts need not re-apply. ------------------------------ From: "KRUSCHKE,JOHN,PSY" <kruschke%ucs.indiana.edu@pucc> Subject: graduate fellowships in cognitive science GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS AND ASSISTANTSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE INDIANA UNIVERSITY COGNITIVE SCIENCE PROGRAM This program offers joint PhDs (and minors associated with PhDs) in combination with a PhD from a home department (such as psychology, computer science, philosophy, linguistics, or any other PhD granting unit). Students must be admitted to, and be members of, some home department. The Cognitive Science Program at Indiana University has a core faculty of 45 professors, supports research activities in numerous areas, publishes a research report series, sponsors a colloquium series, and offers fellowships and assistantships to qualified applicants. A brochure describing the program and admission procedures is available from, and inquiries and requests for information may be directed to, Richard M. Shiffrin, Director Cognitive Science Program Psychology Department Indiana University Bloomington, IN 47405 E-mail: IUCOGSCI@UCS.INDIANA.EDU (Please don't use your e-mail "reply" command, but instead direct inquiries directly to the addresses above.) ------------------------------ From: gpg@unssun.nevada.edu (G. P. Ginsburg) Subject: Tenure Track, Univ. of Nevada 10/19/90 POSITION ANNOUNCEMENT: Univ. of Nevada, Reno, Psychology Department has an anticipated tenure track opening in non-surgical PERCEPTION. We are particularly interested in applicants with long range research plans and good grant potential, who also will be stimulating teachers at the doctoral and undergraduate levels. The Psychology Department offers the PhD in 3 areas--general experimental, clinical, and social--and provides additional specialization in animal behavior and in behavior analysis. Salaries are competitive, lab start-up funds are available, teaching load is moderate (typically 1 graduate seminar and 1 undergrad course per semester, possibly less in first year), the Department is small (15) and congenial, and has been offering the PhD for 25 years. UNR is the land grant university of the State, has 11,000 students, is actively investing in expansion of its doctoral training and research functions, and encourages interdisciplinary initiatives. The University is located in Reno, at an altitude of 4,800 ft, surrounded by mountains, with ample opportunities for outside activities (skiing is 45 min. away, a trout stream runs through town, hiking and camping are readily available in mountains or high desert), and San Francisco is a 4-hr drive by freeway or a 45 min. flight. Interested parties should send application materials to Dr W P Wallace, Chair, Search Committee, Dept of Psychology, Univ of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557; application materials should include a statement of research plans and teaching interests, CV, reprints, and names of 4 references (with addresses and telephone numbers). I'm also happy to answer questions by email. G P Ginsburg, Chair ------------------------------ From: michael tarr <tarr-michael@CS.YALE.EDU> Subject: Assistant Professor, Yale University Assistant Professor, Cognitive Psychology: The Department of Psychology at Yale University expects to make an appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor in the area of cognitive psychology effective July 1, 1991. Outstanding candidates in any subspeciality of this area are encouraged to apply. All applicants are expected to provide high- quality teaching at the undergraduate level and in a graduate cognitive psychology program, and to have exhibited (or shown very clear promise of) excellence in research. Applicants should send a letter of application, a resume, and papers or reprints, and should arrange for three letters of recommendation to be sent to: Chair, Cognitive Psychology Search Committee, Department of Psychology, Yale University, Box 11A Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520-7447. Deadline for completed applications: February 1, 1991. Yale is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action employer, and applications from women and minority group members are especially encouraged. Michael Tarr Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Yale University End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest ******************************
harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15 Psycoloquy Call For Submissions: abstracts, summaries, squibs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stevan Harnad <harnad> Subject: Psyoloquy Call For Submissions Psycoloquy invites researchers in psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience and related disciplines to submit material on which you wish to elicit international and interdisciplinary discussion from the psychological community. A submission can be the abstract or summary of a recent or forthcoming article, or a synopsis of current findings or ideas on which you wish to solicit peer feedback. The submissions should be self-contained, but not too lengthy. All contributions will be refereed by members of Psycoloquy's Editorial Board for the submission's content area. This fall of Psycoloquy's first full year under APA sponsorship is a particularly good time to begin exploring the potential of this powerful new medium of scholarly interaction in advancing scientific research in our field. Other disciplines will be watching this experiment, so let's provide them with a strong first model of the capabilities of the net. Stevan Harnad Perry London Co-Editors End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest ******************************
harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15 Earli Conference SSAISB Information XXVth International Congress of Psychology ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Research Center for Infor.Tech.and Educ." Subject: Earli Conference CALL FOR PAPERS FOURTH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE FOR RESEARCH ON LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF TURKU Turku, FINLAND, August 24-28, 1991 (Organized by: EARLI, European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction) The main theme of the conference will be learning and instruction which will be related, in particular, to the following topics: - cultural and social aspects - learning in natural settings - interactions of social, motivational, and cognitive factors - knowledge acquisition, problem solving and metacognition - developmental processes - learning disabilities - teaching process and teacher thinking - classroom interactions and learning processes - industrial and professional training - new media and information technologies - text comprehension and text production - domain-specific skilled performance (e.g. sports, music) - learning and teaching in specific subject areas, including foreign languages Programme committee Dr Erno Lehtinen, Chair (Finland) Dr Heinz Mandl, Vice-chair (West Germany) Dr Ren` Amigues (France) Dr Pietro Boscolo (Italy) Dr Mario Carretero (Spain) Dr Maureen Pope (Britain) Dr Jan Prucha (Czechoslovakia) Dr Robert Jan Simons (The Netherlands) Conference Program The conference will comprese the following forms of presentation: - Invited addresses - Symposia - Paper sessions - Poster sessions - Demonstrations The official language of the conference will be English. Dates to note: Second circular with registration form will be mailed October 1990 Deadline for proposals incl. abstracts and summaries November 30, 1990 Acceptance of proposals February 1991 Outline of the program will be mailed March 1991 Registration and lodging Registration fee until after April 30, 1991 May 1, 1991 EARLI-members 400 FM 650 FM non-members 650 FM 900 FM Students 20 % discount of the above fees Mailing address for further information 4th EARLI Conference Conference Secretariat P.O.Box 114 SF-20520 Turku, Finland Telefax: +358-21-633 5090; e-mail: LEHTINEN@FINUJO (Bitnet) VAURAS@KONTU.UTU.FI Telephones: +358-21-633 8598 (Marja Vauras, Secretary General) +358-73-151 2378 (Erno Lehtinen, Chair) ------------------------------ From: Aaron Sloman <aarons@syma.sussex.ac.uk> Subject: SSAISB Information I have been asked to post this announcement. Please don't use REPLY: there is an email address for responses below. **** SSAISB **** THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE SIMULATION OF BEHAVIOUR AISB is the major UK society serving the AI and Cognitive Science community. Membership is about 1000 drawn from both industry and academia. AISB helps keep its members informed of progress in AI research through: * The AISB Quarterly Newsletter, which includes feature articles on AI and Cognitive Science, reviews, conference reports, announcements, etc. Members also receive AICommunications (the European Journal on Artificial Intelligence) free of charge. * Schools and Tutorials for newcomers to AI * Organising and sponsoring workshops on issues relevant to AI research and development. * A bi-annual Conference. AISB91 to be held at the University of Leeds 16th-19th April 1991. * AISB produces an Email directory including addresses from the European AI Community in general. Members will receive this free of charge. Membership fees (in sterling) are: UK Europe Overseas Regular 17.00 20.00 25.00 Student 10.00 12.00 14.00 For further details and information on how to join contact Ms. Judith Dennison, Cognitive & Computing Sciences University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH Tel: 0273 678379 Email: judithd@uk.ac.sussex.cogs ------------------------------ From: "G. d'Ydewalle" <gery%BLEKUL11@pucc> Subject: XXVth International Congress of Psychology XXVth International Congress of Psychology 19-24 July 1992, Brussels Belgium The scientific program will include the following main activities: KEYNOTE ADDRESSES AND STATE OF THE ART LECTURES Ten of the most eminent contemporary psychologists will be invited to deliver a keynote address on a subject of their choice. Twenty experts have been asked to prepare a tutorial describing the state of the art in their field of excellence, in a way accessible to non-specialists. SYMPOSIA Twelve symposia in parallel each morning and each afternoon. Each symposium will last three hours: two hours presentation and one hour discussion. Each involves one (or two) conveners, one chairman and four to six speakers. Themes will cover most fields of psychological science. SUBMITTED CONTRIBUTIONS Individual submissions for two forms of presentation will be invited: Thematic sessions: oral presentation, 20 min. (15 presentation and 5 discussion); presentations will be grouped according to theme. Interactive sessions: poster presentation; discussion of posters with common theme will be coordinated by eminent specialists. Thematic sessions and poster presentations in parallel with symposia, discussion part of interactive sessions at end of morning and afternoon sessions. Interactive sessions to be considered as equal in status to thematic sessions. Time schedule of the several calls: APRIL 1991 - distribution of final call, including registration form and invitation for individual submissions JUNE 1991 - first deadline for individual submissions; for abstracts submitted before that deadline, decisions will be announced in November 1991 NOVEMBER 1991 - final deadline for individual submissions, with decisions announced in February 1992 FEBRUARY 1992 - deadline of early bird registrations All correspondences on the Congress: Brussels International Conference Centre, Parc des Expositions, Place de Belgique, B-1020 Brussels, Belgium Phone: 32-2-478.48.60 Fax: 32-2-478.80.23 E-mail: gery@blekul11.bitnet Telex: 23.643 foireb Gery d`Ydewalle University of Leuven Department of Psychology End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest ******************************
harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) (11/21/90)
PSYCOLOQUY Tue, 20 Nov 90 Volume 1 : Issue 15 APA Division 28 (Psychopharmacology) Newsletter ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 10:24 EST Original_From: MVAX::WOOD(Ron Wood) From: General Delivery <POSTMASTER@NYUMED.BITNET> Subject: Please announce discussion group DIV28@gwuvm Behavioral and psychopharmacologists now can subscribe to a an electronic discussion group/ bulletin board. This is effort by the Division of Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse and by the Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association to provide an easy means of rapid communication within the division and among behavioral and psychopharmacologists. You may enroll by sending a note via bitnet to LISTSERV@GWUVM that says: sub div28 firstname lastname. If you are an internetter or need further help, ask Cheri Fullerton of the science directorate for help: apasdcf@gwuvm. Ron Wood is maintaining a directory of email, phone and fax numbers for the division. He will add new listings to the directory, and forward a request to subscribe to the listserver, if members send their information to him at wood@nyumed or wood@mvax.med.nyu.edu. Please note that the list and directory is open (not limited to APA members). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Ronald Wood, Env Med, NYU Med Ctr, Longmeadow Road, Tuxedo, NY 10987 | | Phone: (914) 351-4249 or (212) 340-7300 x5264 FAX: (914) 351-4825 | | E-Mail: Wood@NYUMED (Bitnet), Wood@MVAX.MED.NYU.EDU (Internet) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charlotte_Olson@ub.cc.umich.edu Subject: Div. 28 Newsletter This is the text of the APA Div. 28 Newsletter, Fall 1990 Volume 23, #3 PRESIDENT'S LETTER Klaus Miczek President, Division 28 Psychopharmacologists live a paradoxical life. Like other scientists who study perplexing phenomena, they are readily intrigued by novel methodologies, technological advances and bold ideas, but as soon as an unorthodox explanation is advanced, skepticism prevails. Psychopharmacologists eagerly seek opportu- nities that may yield new insights; we admire innovative concepts and methods. And yet, any serious researcher sports a healthy dose of criticism towards his own and his colleagues' work. Momentary titillation with some far-flung way of defining the drug action on behavior and on brain often yields to a disci- plined approach providing solid information through well-estab- lished methods. The lay public views scientists alternatingly as reckless--and sometimes ruthless--adventurers without limit or respect for the sacrosanct, and then again as saviors shedding light into the frightful darkness of the unknown. Admiration for the detailed understanding of complicated actions of drugs on behavior alternates with confusion when too much detail is given. Scientists are expected to be experts with a great deal of in- depth information and thought of highly when they focus on a specific set of problems; and yet, there is the image of the renaissance-scientist who excels in many areas, who intelligently approaches a broad range of issues and problems. Most scientists fight a life-long battle between being a disciplined, narrowly focused specialist without becoming oblivious to the rest of the real world, and being a broadly educated intellectual with inter- ests and knowledge in many fields of human enterprise without becoming a dilettante. To this picture of contradictions and paradoxes, psychophar- macologists add new dimensions that are unique to them. They combine concepts and methods from psychology, biology and pharmacology, but too often none of these parent disciplines view a psychopharmacologist as a fully legitimate offspring. Here is the world of clinical problems and the various treatment options, and there is the world of molecular analysis of drug receptors. It is a common pitfall to solve complex behavioral problems by reducing them to a molecular problem, only to discov- er that psychopharmacology usually deals with dynamic multideter- minant interacting systems. The essential psychopharmacological paradox is, of course, the drug-behavior interaction itself. Whenever an exciting, new, therapeutically-promising substance arrives, its undesirable side-effects, abuse liability or risk for neurotoxicity are uncovered without much delay. The recent episode with MDMA illustrates this point. While much of psychopharmacological research attempts to develop and improve much-needed therapeutic agents and delineate the benefits of drugs, equally strong ef- forts are expended to deal with the horrifying and ruinous side of drugs, the diabolic cycle of violence and futility surrounding addictive substances. The September riots in the USSR after the supply of cigarettes ran out demonstrate the personal and social trauma of withdrawal from such a "non-drug" as tobacco. Of course, my paradoxical comments are flavored by living during the last decade near the "hub of the solar system", where people come to expect only the best but are most stingy when it comes to providing the adequate resources. Which reminds me of the Epicu- rean paradox: "Give us the luxuries of life, and we will dis- pense with its necessaries." CUNNINGHAM, HOWELL RECEIVE YOUNG PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGIST AWARD, 1990 Larry D. Byrd Committee on Nominations The Young Psychopharmacologist Award for 1990 was shared by Dr. Kathryn A. Cunningham of the University of Texas and Dr. Leonard L. Howell of Emory University. The award, sponsored by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and the Division of Psychopharmacolo- gy, was presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycho- logical Association in Boston. Each awardee received a check for $500.00, an engraved plaque, and reimbursement of expenses to attend the meeting and to deliver an address. Dr. Cunningham, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Texas in Galveston, presented an address entitled "Central Seroto nin Function and the Neuropsychopharmacology of Cocaine." She received undergraduate training at the University of Houston in psychology, mathematics and philosophy, and received two years of graduate training in chemistry and biology at the University of Houston. Her graduate training continued with Dr. James Appel in psychology at the University of South Carolina, and she was awarded the Ph.D. degree in 1985. During her tenure with Dr. Appel, she conducted experiments on the mechanisms of action underlying the discriminative-stimulus properties of cocaine, and phencyclidine, and initiated studies with opiates and ergot alkaloids that led to her dissertation research. She studied and correlated the efficacy of several serotonin antagonists to inhibit the binding of labeled LSD with the abilities of those antagonists to block the discriminable effects of the same doses of the drug. The research combined new analytic techniques from widely different but equally important disciplines including biochemistry, pharmacology and psychology, and provided in vivo confirmation of what had been observed in vitro. Her more recent research at the University of Texas is particularly relevant to cocaine abuse and the neuropharmacology of cocaine. In these studies, Dr. Cunningham used electrophysiological procedures to analyze the effects of cocaine and related substances on seroto- nergic systems. The work demonstrates Dr. Cunningham's ability to learn additional techniques and confirms her continuing inter- est in solving persistent scientific problems. Dr. Howell, a native of Georgia, received his undergraduate training in chemistry at Emory University prior to entering graduate studies in psychology, biochemistry and physiology at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Howell's research for his graduate degrees was conducted with squirrel monkeys at the Yerkes Research Center of Emory University in the laboratory of Dr. Larry Byrd. The experiments investigated the behavioral effects of drugs and a comparison of the effects of cocaine and non-pharmacological, environmental stimuli on schedule-controlled performance. His Master's thesis earned him recognition and the Sigma Xi Research Award for the year at the Georgia Institute of Technology in recognition of the outstanding quality of his research. Upon completion of the Ph.D. requirement in 1985, he moved to Harvard Medical School where he studied with Dr. William Morse for approximately two years. During his tenure at Harvard, he devised and developed a plethysmographic system for measuring respiratory function in rhesus monkeys in order to study the effects of opioids, methylxanthines and other drugs on respirato- ry parameters. His address to the APA convention, entitled "Behavioral and Respiratory Effects of Methylxanthines in Mon- keys," focused primarily on the behavioral and respiratory ef- fects of caffeine and related methylxanthines in this prepara- tion. His research has investigated the role of adenosine in mediating caffeine's effects and the specific role of different adenosine-receptor subtypes in this system. Dr. Howell is presently an Associate Scientist at the Yerkes Research Center of Emory University where his research on the respiratory effects of drugs is funded through a First Award of 5 years' duration. * * * ACTION ALERT * * * CAST ALL YOUR APPORTIONMENT VOTES FOR DIVISION 28! The American Psychological Association's legislative body is the Council of Representatives. In order for a division, state association, or coalition to have a seat on Council, it must receive no less than 0.50% of the total apportionment votes cast. In early November, you will receive the annual apportionment ballot from APA. This ballot provides each member with ten votes, which can either be allocated totally to one division or distributed among several divisions. Individuals who cast all ten of their votes for a single division can have a large impact; as Figure 1 illustrates, the number of members casting all ten votes for Division 28 was very highly correlated with the total votes cast for Division 28. (1st graph in printed version placed here) Fig. 1. Correlation of 10-point votes with total votes cast for Division 28, 1983-90. The number of ten-point votes was less highly correlated, however, with the percent of total apportionment votes cast (see Figure 2). Together, these results suggest that representation depends substantially on both the number of ten-point votes cast and the number of members in each entity seeking representation. In the 1990 apportionment balloting, Division 28's percent of total APA votes was 0.63%--a value clearly above the 0.50% threshold; but the 1990 figure dropped from 0.74% in the previous year. Another decline of this size in the upcoming balloting would place us dangerously close to losing our Council Represen- tative. Ergo, please cast all ten of your votes for Division 28, and encourage colleagues to vote likewise. (2nd graph in printed version placed here) Fig. 2. Correlation of 10-point votes with % of total APA votes, 1983-90. CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION Herbert Barry Centennial Liaison Officer The Division 28 Centennial Liaison, Herb Barry, encourages members to plan programs and presentations pertaining to the APA centennial celebration. This celebration begins with the 1991 meeting in San Francisco and climaxes at the 1992 meeting in Washington, DC. Division 28 will soon begin obtaining oral histories from a few members who have been leading participants in the founding of the Division in 1966 and its history since then. We plan to prepare printed publications that summarize the historical information obtained from these interviews and other sources. Their value will be increased by oral or written recol- lections of any interesting aspect of Division 28 history by any members. We encourage all members to make this contribution to the project. MINUTES, DIVISION 28 ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING, AUGUST 13, 1990 Stephen T. Higgins Secretary, Division 28 1. President Bob Balster convened the meeting at 2:05 p.m., with approximately 18 Division members attending. Minutes of the August, 1989 Business Meeting as published in the Fall 1989 Newsletter were approved. 2. President Balster announced the results of the 1990 election of Division officers: President-elect: Ron Wood Member at Large: Marilyn Carroll Council Representative: Steve Fowler 3. President Balster noted that the Division is exploring the possibility of a new APA journal in psychopharmacology. A Divi- sion Publications Committee has been established to look into this matter and will report to the Division Executive Committee in May, 1991. 4. President Balster commented on the Division's continued involvement with the APA Central Office, mentioning recent dis- cussions with Lew Lipsitt and colleagues of the APA Science Directorate. It was noted that Dr. Lipsitt and colleagues met with the Division Executive Committee on 8/9/90. The importance of developing good relations with the new officers in the APA Central Office was emphasized. 5. Alice Young, for Jack Henningfield, reported that Division 28 remains in good financial status with a balance of $12,614.25 as of December 31, 1989. Please forward to Jack Henningfield the names of any contact persons in pharmaceutical companies or other industries who may support the Division's requests for corporate donations. 6. Steve Fowler reported on matters relating to Division mem- bership: (1) He noted approval by the APA Membership Committee of the following five new Division 28 Fellows: Brenna Bry, Linda Hernandez, Mary Jeanne Kallman, Henry Marcucella, and Timothy Schallert. (2) The decision to initiate a $5.00 annual dues for Division membership appears to have decreased membership by perhaps 100 members, but that effect appears to be ending. Steve projects an increase of approximately 100 new members in the next year. (3) We now have 28 Newsletter Affiliate members; those who are eligible to become full members of the Division should be encouraged to do so. (4) Steve noted that to ensure that the Division maintains a representative on the APA Council, members need to allocate 10-point votes to the Division. (5) Members are encouraged to nominate new Fellows. Names should be forward- ed to Steve Fowler. 7. Larry Byrd reported on Division Nominations. (1) Kathryn A. Cunningham and Leonard L. Howell shared this year's Division 28 Young Psychopharmacologist Award. (2) Larry encouraged Division members to continue nominating deserving Division members for APA and Division 28 Awards. Deadlines for nominations are about the same as for paper submissions for the APA meeting. (3) Dr. Lou Harris has been nominated for Distinguished Affiliate Status in Division 28. Dr. Harris was nominated by Larry; the nomination was seconded by Steve Fowler and unanimously approved. The Division will try to nominate a Distinguished Affiliate annually. Nominees should be outstanding scientists from other disciplines or countries. (4) The Division nominated C.R. Schuster for the APA Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, Travis Thompson for the APA Distinguished Teaching of Psychology Award, and Warren Bickel for the APA Distinguished Contributions by a Young Psychologist Award. (4) The Division wants to continue nominat- ing members for APA Boards and Committees. Please forward names of nominees to Larry. 8. President Bob Balster proposed a change in the Division bylaws in order to change the Division name from the Division of Psychopharmacology to the Division of Psychopharmacology and Sub- stance Abuse. A change in Article 1 of the bylaws permits such a name change. After some discussion of the merits of this propos- al, it was approved by a vote of 14 in favor and 4 against, thereby meeting the 2/3rds mandatory number of positive votes. 9. President-elect Klaus Miczek read the list of nominees for Division Officers for the 1991 election. Lewis Seiden and Maxine Stitzer will run for President, and Alice Young and John Grabow- ski for Member-at-Large. The slate of officers was approved. 10. President Balster thanked Warren Bickel for his fine job as Division 28 Program Chair for the 1990 meeting; Dave Penetar and Nancy Ator will serve as Program Chairs for the 1991 and 1992 meetings, respectively. 11. President Bob Balster noted that the Division 28 Committee on Curricula Development for Training Psychologists in Psycho- pharmacology is continuing to meet as are the Neurobehavior and Toxicology Committee and the Centennial Committee. With regard to the latter committee, H. Barry is in the process of conducting an oral history of Division 28 for the Centennial. 12. President Balster was given a warm round of applause in appreciation for his efforts on behalf of Division 28 during his tenure as president. The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. APA COUNCIL MEETING: AUGUST, 1990 John Grabowski Division 28 Representative to Council The APA Council of Representatives met on August 9 and 12 during the Annual APA Meeting in Boston. This brief report will summarize the meeting agenda and the preliminary 1991 budget. The Council approved a number of items concerning structure and function of new boards and committees, including those relat- ed to the new Education Directorate. (This rounds out the com- plement of Directorates). Items were passed to improve systems for processing of students, members, and fellows. There was discussion about increasing member participation in Divisions. It was noted once again that of the more than 70,000 members, only about 40% belong to divisions. Active participation by members of Division 28 can have an effect, and it is important. The benefits of APA's activity generally, and Division membership in particular, are numerous; some of these are reflected in the directives of the Council of Representatives. These include the strong lobbying efforts to assure the best environment for both scientists and clinicians. The APA has been particularly effec- tive in assuring continued and stable funding for research funds for ADAMHA, on one hand, and assuring equity for clinicians (vis- a-vis physicians and others), on the other hand. The Council voted unanimously to support opposition to the concept of "English Only" laws, efforts to improve the lot of the homeless, and provision of care for those with chronic mental illness. The Council also voted to support the development of Behavioral and Social Sciences Directorate within the NSF. In February, 1990, the APA Council voted unanimous support for organizations that protect science, scientists, and the conduct of research with animals; at the August meeting, the Council voted unanimously to support APA endorsement of the 1990 AAAS resolution on the Use of Animals in Research, Testing, and Educa- tion. The APA is unquestionably among the largest and most formidable organizations lobbying on behalf of continued research with animals. An issue of particular importance to Division 28 is that of "prescription privileges" for psychologists. Division 28's position has been that psychologists generally, and clinical psychologists in particular, would do well to have at least rudimentary understanding of behavioral pharmacology/psychophar- macology. This is true independent of the specific issue of prescribing privileges. In this vein, the Division has supported an effort to develop educational programs. Your representative stated this position clearly in the Council meeting in support of a Proposal for an APA Task Force on Psychopharmacology. It was noted in particular that the Task Force should be heavily loaded with Division 28 members familiar with the issues and science. This item, which was sponsored by Patrick DeLeon, passed. Issues concerning fees and finances were discussed at length. The most distressing item was that basic dues will increase for the coming year--to $155 for a regular membership. Divisional fees are additional. This increase is part of a grand plan for increments over time to accommodate inflation, new programs, and growth. Your representative argued strongly that not all growth is good growth; golden oratory not withstanding, the dues increase passed! A provision was included, however, specifying that the increase would be offset with a credit for those who order APA journals. Special assessments such as those levied on clinicians and some clinical researchers by the Prac- tice Directorate also will increase. Parenthetically, it should be noted that some "science members" (treatment researchers who are nonclinicians) of Divi- sion 28 pay the extra fees. It must be emphasized on behalf of the Director and staff members of the Practice Directorate that they have shown a strong allegiance to the science of psychology and application of science in practice; thus, these funds are not wasted. Ironically, the Practice Directorate now calls on our Division for advice as often as, or more often than, does the Science Directorate. The Science Directorate has done more, and can do more, for behavioral scientists, psychological scientists, and behavioral neuroscientists than most other organizations in which they hold membership. The APA is numerically and finan- cially powerful; the Council and APA central offices generally take the "right positions" on issues of importance to Division 28 members. This is more likely to occur if you are active in the Division and make known your interests and needs, which can then be conveyed to the Council and APA staff members. The proposed budget for the coming year is approximately $39 million and includes neither surplus nor deficit. For copies of the budget materials, please write to John Grabowski, Ph.D. Dept. of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Univ. of Texas Health Science Center, 1300 Moursund, Rm. 341, Houston, TX 77030. The February, 1991 meeting will be my last as your Council representative, and I will provide a summary of observations in the spring issue. Steve Fowler has been elected as the new Council Representative and will take up the Division 28 banner in August of 1991. A NEW JOURNAL: BRIEF REPORT John Grabowski Council Representative Dr. Gary Vandenbos, APA Director of Publications, initiated discussions in February (APA Council Meeting) with John Grabow- ski, Division 28, on development of an APA-based psychopharmacol- ogy journal. This issue was discussed at the Executive Committee meeting in May. Cautious forward movement was encouraged. Grabowski submitted a proposal to Dr. Bruce Overmeir, member of the APA Publications Board, which was received enthusiastically. Grabowski agreed at the August Executive Committee meeting to ------------------------------ PSYCOLOQUY is sponsored by the Science Directorate of the American Psychological Association (202) 955-7653 Co-Editors: (scientific discussion) (professional/clinical discussion) Stevan Harnad Perry London, Dean, Cary Cherniss (Assoc Ed.) Psychology Department Graduate School of Applied Graduate School of Applied Princeton University and Professional Psychology and Professional Psychology Rutgers University Rutgers University Assistant Editors: Malcolm Bauer John Pizutelli Psychology Department Psychology Department Princeton University Rutgers University End of PSYCOLOQUY Digest ******************************