News Psychology today articles

[Fadeaway]

Mods, wasn't sure of were to put this.

Does anyone else have issues with a some of the articles? I often wonder how some get published and what the standards are. I was reading one article, and it felt off and a bit too Freudian, so I went to view the authors other articles and it felt like I was learning more about the authors fetishes disguised as helpful articles. I was researching assertiveness, if that helps.

This isn't the first time I have had doubts about the legitimacy of articles on there, so does anyone know what the criteria for publishing is? Am I alone in this? I am not saying that there isn't a ton of helpful articles, most are. It just seems like every once in a while I find one that makes me wonder how it got past anyone for approval.

 

[Deleted member 37474]

Hmmm. I have found quite a few helpful. Especially the ones on how to handle anxiety. Not sure how many I have read.

 

[Fadeaway]

I guess I should clarify that I find the majority of articles helpful, it is just the occasional article that makes me second guess it.

 

[Friday]

Issues in spades. I try and keep in mind that they're not a scientific or academic source, but rather an entertainment/special interest media. Like CatFancy, or FlyFishingFabulous. As such there's no peer review process, it's an editorial process. Meaning they're looking for if it's well written, interesting, and saleable... not spectacularly accurate, nor held to high standards. Similarly, they're publishing primarily for laypeople these days*, not specialists. So the bar for interesting & informative is significantly lower than magazines that are publishing for enthusiasts & professionals.

* From their submission requirements

Although many psychologists and mental health professionals read PT, most of our readers are simply intelligent and curious people interested in the psyche and the self. Link Removed

 

[Fadeaway]

Thank you. I looked for the submission requirements but couldn't find it.

 

[joeylittle]

It's not a professional publication, so it's quite hit-or-miss. But you are doing the right thing in checking who the author is; that'll usually tell you if you should take them with one grain of salt, instead of two or three.

 

[Deadman]

Psychology Today is to psychology as fitness magazines are to fitness. Both are in the business of selling magazines and advertising, not wellness. New, different, exciting and controversial are what sell. Most people don't want to slog through research publications. They want "30 Days to Thinner Thighs" and "5 Signs Your Boss may be a Sociopath".

 

[Cyberluddite]

If you want to know where the best places are to eat, ask the locals. The venues advertised on TV and in the phonebook are for the tourists.

Similarly, information sources that are widely offered at public news stands, or easily accessible online, are peer-consensus. There are no hard "standards" to speak of, other than being a popular topic of interest (whatever moves copies).

The good stuff is worth the effort taken to find it. In print form, peer-reviewed publications are best. Normally you'll have to visit a library (public, university, etc.) and request a copy from the Periodicals desk, though. If you're searching online, domains ending with ".gov" are considered top-standard. ".Org" is great, but watch for industry bias as the designation is strictly for organizations. ".com" is entertainment and business, good starting point but you wouldn't want to rely on them.

".net" is a catch-all that isn't used much these days.

Try to find sources that directly oversee the field of study. NIH, CDC, AMA, NHS, something government-level.

 

[Cyberluddite]

Additionally, if the author cites sources that are government-level quality, or peer-reviewed, that's a good sign for validity. The catch is that it also requires critical assessment skills; i.e. how does Psychology Today's style of delivery compare with Journal of Psychology?

That usually requires reading at least a few issues of each source, to get a sense of tone, intent, draw, bias, accuracy, and audience. After a while the awareness almost becomes instinctive, and you'll be able to tell the quality of the authors within a single issue.

A lot of times, you can even develop an "ear" for emotional context, which is often used to "sell the sizzle" of the informational content's "steak". You can usually tell, if the article causes a sudden, inexplicable reaction (anger, shock, pity, terror, joy, etc.)

Knowing your sources is easy. Knowing your sources objectively isn't.