Prestigious journals are widely admired for publishing quality scholarship, yet the primary indicators of journal prestige (i.e., impact factors) do not directly assess audience admiration. Moreover, the publication landscape has changed substantially in the last 20 years, with electronic publishing changing the way we consume scientific research. Given that it has been 18 years since the publication of the last journal prestige survey of SIOP members, the authors conducted a new survey and used these results to reflect on changing practices within industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. SIOP members (n = 557) rated the prestige and relevance of I-O and management journals. Responses were analyzed according to job setting, and were compared to a survey conducted by Zickar and Highhouse (2001) in 2000. There was considerable consistency in prestige ratings across settings (i.e., management department vs. psychology department; academic vs. applied), especially among the top journals. There was considerable variance, however, in the perceived usefulness of different journals. Results also suggested considerable consistency across the two time periods, but with some increases in prestige among OB-oriented journals. Changes in the journal landscape are discussed, including the rise of OHP as a topic of concentration in I-O. We suggest that I-O programs will continue to attract the top researchers in talent management and OHP, which should result in the use of a broader set of journals for judging I-O program impact.

A preregistered replication was conducted to examine the evidence for the basic dilution effect in a performance prediction context. Participants (n = 796) were presented with either diagnostic information alone or diagnostic + nondiagnostic information in a grade point average (GPA) prediction task. The diagnostic information was either indicative of a low GPA or a high GPA. The basic dilution effect predicts less extreme predictions when nondiagnostic information (e.g., the student describes himself as a cheerful person) is included with the diagnostic information.Despite an unusually large sample, a strong manipulation, and the use of stimulus sampling, results showed no evidence for dilution in GPA predictions. Reasons for the failure to replicate under optimal conditions are discussed.