A recent submission to (and rejection from) Psychological Science has provided me with enough information on the editorial process, via Manuscript Central, to blog a follow-up to my Elsevier Editorial System blog of 2011. (I’m not the only person who is making public their manuscript statuses either, see also Guanyang Zhang’s original and most recent posts.)

Psychological Science Decision

Below is the chronology for the status updates a submission from my lab received from Psychological Science. As stated in the confirmation-of-submission letter received from the Editor-in-Chief, the process of obtaining a first decision should take up to 8 weeks from initial submission.


  • “Awaiting Initial Review Evaluation” – 09/01/2013: The manuscript is submitted and awaits triage, where it is read by two members of the editorial team. An email is sent to the corresponding author from the Editor-in-Chief. The triage process takes up to two weeks and determines whether or not the manuscript will go out for full review.

Full Review

  • “Awaiting Reviewer Selection” – 22/01/2013: An email is sent to the corresponding author from the Editor-in-Chief informing them that the manuscript has passed the triage initial review process. The extended review process is stated as lasting 6-8 weeks from receipt of this email.
  • “Awaiting Reviewer Assignment” – 28/01/2013
  • “Awaiting Reviewer Invitation” – 28/01/2013
  • “Awaiting Reviewer Assignment” – 29/01/2013
  • “Awaiting Reviewer Selection” – 29/01/2013: I may have missed some status updates here. Essentially, I think these status updates reflect the Associate Editor inviting reviewers to review the manuscript and the reviewers choosing whether or not to accept the invitation.
  • “Awaiting Reviewer Scores” – 05/02/2013: The reviewers have agreed to review the manuscript and the Manuscript Central review system awaits their reviews.
  • “Awaiting AE Decision” – 15/03/2013: The reviewers have submitted their reviews, which the Associate Editor uses to make a decision about the manuscript
  • “Decline” – 16/03/2013: An email is sent to the corresponding author from the Associate Editor informing them of the decision and providing feedback from the reviewers.

The whole process took just under ten weeks, so not quite within the 8 week estimate that the initial confirmation-of-submission email suggested.

It’s a shame that I can’t blog the status updates post-acceptance, but the final status update is supposedly what 89% of submissions to Psychological Science will end with. Onwards.

The lab’s first Javascript experiment has been online for about 3 weeks now, and has amassed close to 200 participants. It’s been a great experience discovering that the benefits of online testing (60+ participants a week, many of them run while I’m asleep!) easily outweight the costs (the time expended learning Javascript and coding all the fiddly bits, particularly the informed consent procedures and performance-appropriate feedback).

On top of the study completion data that’s obvious from the 7 KB csv file that each happily-debriefed participant leaves behind, the Google Analytics code embedded in each page of the experiment provides further opportunity to explore participation data.


As the experiment structure is entirely linear, it’s possible to track the loss of participants from each page to the next.

Study Attrition

The major point of attrition is between the Participant Information Page and the Consent Form – not surprising given quite how text-heavy the first page was, and how ‘scary’ headings like “Are there any potential risks to taking part?” make the study sound. The content of that first page is entirely driven by the Informed Consent requirements of the University of St Andrews, but the huge attrition rate here has prompted a bit of a redesign in the next follow-up study.


New Visits by Browser

Other information useful for the design of future studies has been the browser data. As might be expected, Firefox and its relatives are the dominant browsers, with Chrome a distant second and Internet Explorer lagging far behind. Implementing fancy HTML5 code that won’t work in Firefox is therefore a bad idea. On top of that, despite how tablet- and phone-friendly the experiment was, very few people used this sort of device to complete the study – it’s probably a waste of time optimising the site specifically for devices like iPads.

Study Completions by Browser
Study Completions by Browser

Curiously enough, when the data for study completions are explored by browser, the three major platforms start to level up. Chrome, Firefox and IE all yield similar completion statistics, suggesting that IE browsers are far more likely to follow through and complete the study once they visit the site. I’m speculating here, but I suspect that this has something to do with a) this being a memory study and b) IE being used by an older demographic of internet user who may be interested in how they perform. Of the three major browsers, Firefox users have the worst completion rate.


Another consideration with word-based experiments is the location of participants. This could impact on the choice of words used in future studies (American or UK spellings) and could be considered important by those who are keen to exclude those who don’t speak English as their first language. Finer grained information about participants’ first languages is something we got from participant self-reports in the demographic questionnaire, but the table of new visits and study completions is still rather interesting.

New Visits and Study Completions by Country

Once again, there are few surprises here, with the US dominating the new visits list, though one new visit from a UK- or India-based browser is more likely to lead to a study completion. A solid argument for using North American spellings and words could also be made from these data.

Source of Traffic

The most important thing to do to make potential participants aware of an online psychology study is to advertise it. But where?

Study Completions by Source

While getting the study listed on stumbleupon was a real coup, it didn’t lead to very many study completions (a measly 2.5%). That’s not surprising – the study doesn’t capture the attention from page 1 and doesn’t have much in the way of internet meme-factor. That is, of course, something that we should be rectifying in future studies if we want them to go viral, but it’s tough to do within the rigid constraints of the informed consent pages that must precede the study itself.

The most fruitful source of participants was the psych.hanover.edu Psychological Research on the Net page. It was much more successful at attracting visits and study completions than facebook, the best of the social networks, and the other online experiment listing sites on which we advertised the study (onlineresearch.co.uk and http://www.socialpsychology.org/expts.htm). What’s more, there has been a sustained stream of visitors from the psych.hanover.edu page that hasn’t tailed off as the study has been displaced from the top of the Recently Added Studies list.

These statistics, surprised me more than any other.  I assumed that social networking, not a dedicated experiment listing page, would be how people would find the study. But in retrospect, it all makes sense. There is clearly a large number of people out there who want to do online psychology studies, and what better way to find them than to use a directory that lists hundreds of them.  If there’s one place you should advertise your online studies, it’s psych.hanover.edu.

Academics are a diverse bunch. Those in my department of just under 40 lecturers and teaching fellows span an estimated 40-year age-range, at least 10 different nationalities and the full spectrum of technological competence. Some were introduced to e-mail in their teens, others in their 40s – all of us use it as the primary mode of communicating with students. A student making e-mail contact with an academic therefore needs to make a few allowances for the recipient.

Below are a few thing to watch out for when e-mailing academics for the first time.

1) Use your university-provided e-mail account.
It’s your ‘work’ e-mail, so set it up correctly (make sure you change the account setting to display your sender name etc.) and use it for work-related correspondence. I don’t know what to think when I get an e-mail from fluffyspuggle@freemail.com.

2) Use an appropriate greeting.
“Dear <title> <surname>,”  will never let you down. Yes, there are some who believe that it’s too formal for the medium, but you’re e-mailing someone about whom you know very little.  They might like being addressed this formally, they might not care, but they certainly won’t think any worse of you doing it. In my view, the less formal “Hello <title> <surname>” is equally appropriate, though straying into “Hi” or “Hey” gets risky – I don’t mind “Hi” but I really hate receiving e-mails that open with “Hey” from someone I don’t know. The total absence of a greeting offends me.

3) Don’t get your academic’s gender wrong.
I have a name that ends in the letter A.  As a result of a Western European naming heuristic, people often assume that I am female. This assumption is fine from telemarketers and those who want to send me trial subscriptions to Red magazine, but not students.  If you’re not a professional cold-caller, getting your e-mail recipient’s gender wrong just suggests that you’re lazy. If you’ve haven’t heard the name before, Google it.

4) Don’t get your academic’s title wrong.
Is the recipient’s gender even relevant to your e-mail? If you’re e-mailing an academic with “Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms”,  you’re already taking an etiquette risk. Some academics get very tetchy about their title (Dr, Professor). If in doubt, just Google it. The search term <first name> <surname> <institution> usually does the trick.  If they have PhD or Dr on their page, use “Dr”.  If they have Prof or Professor on their page, use “Prof”.  If none of these apply, use a gender-appropriate title.

5) Don’t make inappropriate gender assumptions about your academic.
Women get PhDs.  Women also get made Professor. I don’t know anyone who would argue with these facts, but coffee-room conversation suggests that female academics have to deal with a greater number of inappropriately-written e-mails than their male colleagues.

6) Use appropriate language to communicate.
Communicating over e-mail isn’t like communicating over twitter or facebook (at least your academic probably doesn’t think so). Yes, keep it concise, but not so concise that you have to omit vowels.  Smileys in your first e-mail may make your recipient >:  And be polite… please?

7) Sign off.
Something more formal than “Cheers” usually does the trick. “Regards,” “Best,” and “Thanks,” are all fine by me, though I would err on the side of “Regards,” if you started with “Dear”.  And do sign off with your name (first or first and surname) and no kisses. Just friends, ok?

These recommendations become a little looser as you build a history of communication with your academic.  In second e-mails you can probably ditch the <title> <surname> business in favour of the academic’s sign-off name or something appropriate to the tone of their response (or slightly more formal).  For instance, if your academic signs off with  “Best, Akira” or “Thanks, A” feel free to follow-up with “Dear Akira,” or “Hello Akira,”.  If your academic responds with “Hey,” they have absolutely no reason to get offended by a similar reply from you.

Just make sure you get that first e-mail right. It does matter.  You’re going to be relying on tutors, project supervisors and lecturers to give you guidance and opportunities during and after university. Making a bad first-impression isn’t insurmountable, but it’s definitely something you can do without.

It’s been a while.

Settling in to a new job has been terrifying and tiring in equal measure.  The seemingly boundless spending of the early weeks has been replaced by an awfully adult awareness that the only thing you can’t buy is time: more time in my day to prepare for contact with students, to write grant applications, to read journal articles, to blog (yes, this is something I feel I ‘should’ be doing)  but most of all, to think.

Whilst I find it very easy to develop my thoughts on how the Comprehensive Spending Review affected me (not much, yet), whether I support the student protest movement against tuition fees (I do, wholeheartedly), and why QPR saw fit to lose on national television in the only fixture I’ve seen them play this season (regression to the mean), I’m struggling to come up with original ideas for experiments that will be an instant imaging hit.  I’m in the profession of thinking, so it’s certainly no good thing that I’m running dry, but it’s also rather inevitable.

For the past three years I’ve been thinking about work that isn’t actually my own. I have deferred my own ideas about projects to those of my PI and we have primarily pursued paths that he has wanted to pursue.  This was great for showing me the ropes, and showing me how to think about fMRI within Psychology, something I have been employed to further here in St. Andrews, but it has also lead to this rather awkward moment of transition.  I now have to build up my own head of steam, run my own behavioural pilots and read other people’s’ articles with my own research agenda in mind.  Of course, I was doing this when in St Louis, but my livelihood didn’t depend on it.  Now it does.

So, I’m ploughing on with behavioural projects and hoping that forcing myself to think will lead to better thinking (after all, your brain is a muscle isn’t it? gah!).  I’m also considering a couple of more contrived mind-hacks to nudge the process along:

1) Read journal articles at a minimum rate of 1/weekday.

2) Design an experiment I could run at a minimum rate of 1/week.

3) Blog at a minimum rate of 1/week.

I’m not sure if I’ll follow through on these, or whether they’ll be any help if I do, but I’m going to try.  I can’t afford to stay barren for too long.