Women as Top-Producing Authors, Editors, and Editorial Board Members in Educational Psychology Journals from 2017 to 2021

Who Are the 50 Most Productive Researchers in Top-Tier Educational Psychology Journals From 2017 to 2022? A New Perspective with a Focus on Publication Trends and Diversity

“…Cognition and Instruction has not been a part of the top 10 in the Web of Science "Psychology, Educational" list since 2019 and has an average rank of 17.17 between 2017 and 2022 (for a similar argument, see also Griffin et al, 2023). In contrast, Learning and Instruction and the Journal of the Learning Sciences have been top-tier journals for years (for a similar argument, see also Griffin et al, 2023), but have never been included in productivity rankings (e.g., Hsieh et al, 2004;Jones et al, 2010;Smith et al, 1998Smith et al, , 2003. To date, the study by Fong et al (2022) is the only study to include articles published in Learning and Instruction, which resulted in notable changes in the productivity ranking compared to using the "standard" set of journals and CI.…”

“…In addition to ranking studies that have examined researchers' productivity in educational psychology in general, there are also studies that have focused specifically on women's productivity in the field (Evans et al, 2005;Fong et al, 2009;Greenbaum et al, 2018;Griffin et al, 2023;Robinson et al, 1998). Furthermore, qualitative interviews have been conducted in follow-up studies with a small number of highly successful educational psychologists (e.g., Flanigan et al, 2018;Kiewra & Creswell, 2000;Kiewra et al, 2021;Patterson-Hazley & Kiewra, 2013) and specifically with selected highly productive female educational psychologists (Mayrath, 2008;Prinz et al, 2020).…”

“…173-175). Fong et al (2022) argued that these five journals were chosen as they have been selected in previous productivity studies (for a similar reasoning, see Greenbaum et al, 2018;Hsieh et al 2004), and that they were "representative" (p. 2) journals within educational psychology (see also Griffin et al, 2023).…”

“…We focused on the number of publications in representative, top-tier journals because this is a common way to operationalize research productivity (e.g., Smith et al, 1998) that reflects both the quantity and quality of a researcher's output (Prinz et al, 2020). However, this measure has been criticized as reductionistic and incomplete (Griffin et al, 2023;Schönbrodt et al, 2022), and there are discussions around the questions what a "productive researcher" is (e.g., Vazire & Holocombe, 2022). This is one of the reasons why we used both count-and point-based scoring methods and a combined scoring method, and why we and open science practices (e.g., preregistering studies, publishing registered reports, conducting a replication study within a study, as well as sharing data, study materials, and reproducible analysis scripts).…”