Methodology Expert Ulf-Dietrich Reips Assumes Helm at PSPI

Ulf-Dietrich Reips, a psychology professor at the University of Konstanz, is the new editor of the APS journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

Reips’s work focuses on internet-based research methodologies, particularly internet-based psychological experiments and tests. He is a member of the Extended Leadership Team in the university’s Centre for Human | Data | Society.

Published three times per year, PSPI is a unique journal featuring comprehensive state-of-the-science reviews of issues that are of direct relevance to policymakers and the public. Topics covered in recent issues have included arithmetic fluency, sexual-violence prevention, and developmental research with youth involved in the justice system. 

The Observer recently asked Reips to share his goals for the journal.

What goals do you have for the journal under your tenure? Do you plan any significant changes or additions to the journal itself or to the types of articles being published?

First of all, I would like to emphasize that PSPI has been an extremely successful journal, and so I will seek to keep most of its traditions. Careful analyses of factors that optimize its performance notwithstanding, I am a proponent of supporting open science in ways that make sense and do not police academic freedom. As someone who pioneered internet-based research in the 1990s and founded an online journal in the early 2000s, I feel that the internet and digital technologies can help immensely in achieving and securing the foundations of science. For example, the open science and citizen science that grew out of opportunities arising from the internet have fostered transparency of research materials and availability of research results. Properly powered studies that are replicable have become so much more common in psychology, and PSPI is an ideal journal for reviewing their findings. Specific additions and types of articles I would like to see in PSPI and will encourage are results from worldwide Big Team Science efforts and mega- and meta-analyses. 

Recently, we have all seen and experienced the much-discussed power of artificial intelligence (AI). Though it poses risks to the publishing business, AI is something I would like to introduce to the PSPI authors by offering them the option of having an AI reviewer in addition to the peer reviewers. AI can certainly also strengthen and enhance the publication process in other ways. AI also leads us to your next question. 

What topics are you most interested in pursuing for PSPI? 

Foremost, I would like to see an in-depth review of (still human-conducted) research on the intersection of psychology and AI, and how they have influenced and inspired each other over time. I’d like to see authors trace the historical development of AI from its origins in cognitive psychology and logic, to its current state of deep learning and big data, and to the future prospects of artificial general intelligence and artificial “superintelligence.” I’d like to see the journal examine the psychological aspects of AI, such as its impact on human cognition, emotion, and behavior, and the ethical and psychological challenges and opportunities that arise from its use. And I’d like PSPI to highlight the potential and need for interdisciplinary collaboration in scientific research on AI. 

One of the strengths of PSPI is its ability to cover a wide range of topics that reflect the breadth and depth of psychological science and its implications for the public interest. The PSPI article by Franconeri et al. (2021) on what works in visual data communication to me is an excellent example of the type of article I would like to publish frequently in the journal. As Editor, I will continue to pursue topics that are timeless, important, and useful, and that address both longstanding and emerging challenges and opportunities facing us and our world. Some of the topics that I am currently deliberating are the psychology of probabilities, the psychology of feeling good, and reflections on the research process and public understanding. 

These topics are not only relevant and interesting to the public, but also to the psychological science community and to the interdisciplinary and international audiences that PSPI aims to reach. I would also welcome suggestions and proposals from the Editorial Board, the APS membership, and PSPI authors and readers for other topics that fit the journal’s mission and scope. 

Learn more about APS’s journal, Psychological Science in the Public Interest.

How might you try to bring authors together to write about topics that could be somewhat controversial or contentious?

I’d do this by arguing that the topics are both scientifically important and of public interest. Ignoring them won’t help. Although there are certainly fads, fashions or taboos, and topics that are pushed or framed by lobbyists from large players in society, there are also topics that are of eternal interest and/or have been controversial for a long time—and sometimes also are again very current (e.g., AI). I would love to support authors in embarking on bringing their expertise about topics to the writing while keeping or even improving methodological and empirical rigor. After all, we scientists are the ones who have learned to investigate properly, and it is a superb task to explain in understandable ways what we have found (and found not to be), and to explain the means we used to reach those conclusions. 

One root of science as a pillar of civilization lies in ancient Greece, where philosophy (seeking the truth) and rhetoric (the art of persuading others and presenting one’s perspective) emerged as two dominant forces. The strong rule and school of rhetoric were born from the right of defendants to argue before a forum that would decide about life or death, creating the profession of the lawyer who would argue for defendants. Over time, philosophy superseded rhetoric as the main force of influence, simply because one can’t engineer and build a bridge on the basis of convincing-sounding arguments only. Only the truth gets us to truly advance—and remain—on dry, safe, footing. We live in times when rhetoric (via media) has returned to sometimes dominate decision making in our societies. Extending the frame, including historical and interdisciplinary perspectives or different international views, may sometimes reveal solutions to a current local controversy or show its arbitrariness. PSPI’s aims are perfectly placed in the best tradition: To combine philosophy with communication that transfers knowledge about important and useful findings to the public.

So, I will seek to invite authors who have different but valid and evidence-based positions and arguments on a given topic, and who are willing and able to engage in constructive and respectful dialogue and exchange with other authors—and also tolerate an occasional slip. I will encourage and support these authors to present and justify their perspectives and findings, but also to acknowledge and address the limitations and implications of their work and to consider and respond to the alternative and opposing views and evidence. All of this aims to combine the best of psychological science with evoking that shimmering light of insight and excitement in the public eye, with which bridges can be built.

Feedback on this article? Email [email protected] or login to comment.