Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology

Add topic
Active discussions
 Main Main Talk Article guide Article alerts Assessment Popular pages Recognized content Resources 


WikiProject Psychology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Index · Statistics · Log


AFD discussionEdit

There is a deletion discussion you might be interested in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of psychology. Your participation is welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

DSM-IV and DSM-5Edit

I've been reading a lot of psychopathology-related articles recently and noticed a massive amount of sourcing from the DSM-IV. I'm not a clinician or anything so maybe I'm unaware, but is the DSM-IV not at least approaching obsolescence at this point? I mean, it's almost a decade old, and science moves fast: by the time I finished my degree, there were things I'd learnt in sixth form that were out of date...and while I'm aware that the DSM-5 is not without its own issues, I don't feel that there was an exceptional amount of controversy when it was released, and I suspect it has only become more accepted as time goes on. Would it be sensible/helpful to update things to the DSM-5 as I come across them? In some cases, where useful and practical, potentially even commenting on changes and referring to both sources, e.g. when a diagnosis not present in the DSM-5 is frequently used in clinical practice, it may be useful to have information available on both the "official, up-to-date" diagnostic framework and the diagnoses that patients actually receive. My personal preference would be to update the vast majority of references to the DSM to be to the DSM-5, but I wanted to know what more experienced editors and people with more expertise have to say (I'm only a psychology graduate) as well as wanting to be made aware if there's already a protocol. Anditres (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Information should be up-to-date, and the DSM-IV is out of date. So yes, in a perfect world the DSM-5 would be cited by default and the DSM-IV would only be cited in the history section.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Excellent points Anditres. In answer to your question, "Would it be sensible/helpful to update things to the DSM-5 as I come across them?" → YES! And please do not worry about being "only a psychology graduate". You possess the most important Wikipedian traits: Conscientiousness, tact, keen analytical ability, and good gosh Miss Molly ya know how to write! On the few occasions when your research and study do not yield sufficient understanding of a psychological concept or line of research, feel free to ask me and if I don't know I'll bug some other knowledgeable editors. ;0) I look forward to your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. All the very best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 20:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Steven C. HayesEdit

There seems to be an issue with the description of Steven C. Hayes's work on acceptance and commitment therapy that was brought up on the BLP Noticeboard.[1] We probably need some content experts from the project to review and verify some of the assertions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:Steven C. Hayes. Biogeographist (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Polygraph results in an alleged case of alien abductionEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Travis Walton UFO incident § Polygraph. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Redirect at Emotional turmoilEdit

What should be done with this redirect? Is Emotional conflict a good target, or would something else be better? Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#Emotional turmoil. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Dunning–Kruger effectEdit

There is a discussion on Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect regarding whether DK is a true cognitive bias. A consensus is decidely absent. Constant314 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of North American Journal of PsychologyEdit

I've come across North American Journal of Psychology (NAJP) a number of times in my travels on WP. I've always been stumped on whether or not it's actually reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia - to the point where I've dug into it a bit. I also asked about NAJP at WT:CITEWATCH, because I figured that they would have the most experience in what is and isn't a questionable journal practise (they said it's borderline so to ask for further opinions). I'm particularly concerned about the editors' habit of publishing their own papers, and them actively encouraging papers that other journals won't accept. Hopefully other people have more experience with the journal, or can just give an opinion on their assessment of the journal. If anyone else finds other evidence either way, feel free to add it to the lists, just please sign your addition so people can tell what was always here and what was added later.

Here are the relevant points, as I see it (most of this is copied from my post at CiteWatch). --Xurizuri (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Potentially bad signs:

  • Editorial policy makes it pretty clear that they'll accept papers that many reliable journals wouldn't[1] This is up to and including them saying that they are seeking papers on "Topics that are 'unpopular' in other journals".[2]
  • I checked the issues they've released over 2021 and 2020, and the journal's editor, McCutcheon, has published at least one article in every issue. And they're not even editorials, they're research articles. In every issue at least one other member of their advisory/consulting editors has also published a research article.
    • I'd normally assume it's fine, but because (as far as I can tell) there's a habit of publishing their "inner circle's" papers, it seems worth mentioning that there are a handful of other perennial authors, e.g. Clark and Ready.
  • They advise people to add other authors onto their paper in order to reduce cost of application. It seems really weird to me to advise that authors give credit to people who weren't involved for the sake of authors saving money.[3]
  • The publisher of the NAJP is NAJP.
  • Bad impact factor and SCImago ranking, with no improvement over time.
  • As far as I've seen, the articles don't have DOIs. Potentially relatedly, they encourage authors to upload their articles to ResearchGate, etc, with an implication that getting the research accessible to people is the responsibility of the author.[3]
  • They publish papers that have very major methodological and theoretical flaws. For example - an article where part of the justification is The Secret, and the study picks out and compared 2 individual questions from a questionnaire (NOT how a questionnaire should be analysed), with no justification as to why they picked those specific questions.[4]

Potentially good signs:

  • Indexed in PsycNET
  • Indexed in Scopus (39th percentile for sociology and pol sci, 29th for education, 18th for developmental/education psych, 17th for general psych - for anyone not familiar with percentiles, its basically the percentage of other journals that they're considered "better" than)[5]
  • There are well-known psychologists on their board, e.g. Philip Zimbardo

References

AfD: Animals in LGBT cultureEdit

---Another Believer (Talk) 17:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking for peer review of Paul Goodman, co-founder of gestalt therapyEdit

Hi all, I'm looking for peer reviews of our article on the American public intellectual Paul Goodman, a co-founder of gestalt therapy, before the article goes to FAC, if anyone would be so inclined:   Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Goodman/archive1. No prior experience necessary—just want to know how it reads for a general audience, given that the content gets a bit obtuse. czar 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Oliver James (psychologist)Edit

The article-subject (presumably) turned up at the Teahouse, Wikipedia:Teahouse#vandalism. He is not too happy with the article, and it it does focus on the negative, if rightly so I can't say. If someone interested and knowledgeable wants to take a look, it couldn't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on talk:Manipulation (psychology)Edit

A month-long ongoing discussion about the structure and style of the Manipulation article (and I think by extension, also other psychology-related behavior articles) has been taking place between myself and user:wiki-psyc on Talk:Manipulation_(psychology)#May_2022_discussion. More opinions and perspectives would be much appreciated. Darcyisverycute (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge at Talk:Sexual orientation change effortsEdit

I have proposed merging the article Sexual orientation change efforts, an article of interest to this WikiProject, into Conversion therapy.

You are invited join the discussion at Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts § Proposed merge to Conversion therapy. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)