Historical Analysis: Editors' Reflections on 50 Years of the Journal of Pediatric Psychology

OBJECTIVE

This article provides an historical perspective on the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

METHODS

Former and current editors of JPP participated in a symposium at the 2019 Society of Pediatric Psychology Annual Conference (SPPAC), each highlighting prominent types of articles published during their terms, the influence of these papers over time, and their reflections on the next 50 years of the journal. Their presentations were summarized and integrated for this article. Additional data on editorial teams, special issues, and publication metrics over time are included.

RESULTS

The data demonstrate changes over time in the growth, scope, and impact of JPP. The article also shows the consistency in areas of emphasis over time. Anticipated topics for the future were quite consistent across editors and included increased use of technology, broader attention to teams and approaches, and methodological advances as the field will continue to grow.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides an unusual collaboration among editors of JPP, providing an historical perspective on the journal's growth over time and anticipation of continued impact into the future.

Limited by our limitations

Study limitations represent weaknesses within a research design that may influence outcomes and conclusions of the research. Researchers have an obligation to the academic community to present complete and honest limitations of a presented study. Too often, authors use generic descriptions to describe study limitations. Including redundant or irrelevant limitations is an ineffective use of the already limited word count. A meaningful presentation of study limitations should describe the potential limitation, explain the implication of the limitation, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitation. This includes placing research findings within their proper context to ensure readers do not overemphasize or minimize findings. A more complete presentation will enrich the readers' understanding of the study's limitations and support future investigation.

The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Results

The "results section" of a scientific paper provides the results related to all measurements and outcomes that have been posted earlier in the materials and methods section. This section consists of text, figures, and tables presenting detailed data and facts without interpretation and discussion. Results may be presented in chronological order, general to specific order, most to least important order, or may be organized according to the topic/study groups or experiment/measured parameters. The primary content of this section includes the most relevant results that correspond to the central question stated in the introduction section, whether they support the hypothesis or not. Findings related to secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses may be reported in this section. All results should be presented in a clear, concise, and sensible manner. In this review, we discuss the function, content, and organization of the "results section," as well as the principles and the most common tips for the writing of this section.

Discussion: The Heart of the Paper

The discussion section explains the meaning of results to the readers, and addresses the implications of the findings emanating from the particular study. Authors should compare their results with previous reports, and attempt to explain similarities and differences. It is useful to outline the limitations and strengths of the study, and suggest a future line of work. A concise, convincing and meticulous discussion with scholarly referencing is the key to a lasting impression.