Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of School Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ jschpsyc

Commissioned Article

Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity,,
Rebecca S. Martnez a,, Randy G. Floyd b, Luke W. Erichsen a
a b

Indiana University, USA The University of Memphis, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
In all academic elds, there are scholars who contribute to the research literature at exceptionally high levels. The goal of the current study was to discover what school psychology researchers with remarkably high levels of journal publication do to be so productive. In Study 1, 94 highly productive school psychology scholars were identied from past research, and 51 (39 men, 12 women) submitted individual, short-answer responses to a 5-item questionnaire regarding their research strategies. A constant comparative approach was employed to sort and code individual sentiments (N = 479) into categories. Seven broad categories of counsel for increasing productivity

Article history: Received 25 August 2011 Accepted 4 October 2011 Keywords: Productive scholars Ways to increase scholarly productivity Contributions to literature Qualitative research Survey research

The former Editor of the Journal of School Psychology (JSP), Dr. Edward Daly III, commissioned this article to be developed as part of a special issue of JSP. All manuscripts were subjected to masked peer review. Reviews were coordinated by Dr. Tanya Eckert and Dr. John Hintze without using the JSP manuscript submission portal, the Elsevier Editorial System, to ensure that the manuscript authors were blind to reviewers' identities. The rst author would like to acknowledge with gratitude her mentor, Dr. Ed Daly. She also would like to thank Mr. Rodney Reid for teaching her to write well. Finally, Rebecca wishes to recognize the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference (SPRCC) for its powerful impact on her development as a scholar in school psychology. We wish to thank the following for their thoughtful and timely feedback on an early draft of the short-answer survey questions: J. Gayle Beck, Phil Carspecken, Jack Cummings, Barbara Dennis, Art Graesser, Robert Neimeyer, Danielle McNamara, James Murphy and Leah Nellis. In particular, we appreciate Robert Neimeyers suggestion that we interview some of the highly productive scholars. Additionally, we are grateful to the following Journal of School Psychology associate editors for their feedback on the letter to participants and draft of the questions: Sara Bolt, Robin Codding, Christine McWayne, and Kent McIntosh. We also appreciate all of the highly productive scholars for devoting their time to this project. Melissa Bray, Frank Gresham, Scott Huebner, Tom Kratochwill, and Chris Skinner reviewed and approved their respective interview transcriptions and summaries presented in Study 2 of this manuscript. Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 812 856 8324; fax: + 1 812 856 8333. E-mail address: rsm@indiana.edu (R.S. Martnez). Action editor: Tanya Eckert. 0022-4405/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Society for the Study of School Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003

692

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

emerged: (a) research and publication practices and strategies, (b) collaboration, mentoring and building relationships, (c) navigating the peer-review process, (d) strategies to bolster writing productivity and excellence, (e) personal character traits that foster productivity, (f) preparation before entering the professoriate, and (g) other noteworthy sentiments. Results are discussed in terms of nine recommendations for scholars and graduate students who wish to increase their productivity. In Study 2, ve of the most productive scholars (1 woman, 4 men) participated in a semi-structured interview about their high levels of productivity. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed, and a case analysis approach employed to prole each scholar. Study limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Society for the Study of School Psychology.

1. Introduction The lives and practices of successful men and women, those whose accomplishments rise above the ordinary, intrigue many people and have been the subject of several bestselling books. In Developing Talent in Young People, Bloom (1985) studied 120 highly talented individuals who reached the pinnacle of success in their respective elds by age 35. Bloom concluded that with the appropriate environmental nurturing almost anybody could mirror the accomplishments of these extraordinarily successful people. More recently, Gladwell (2008) published Outliers, chronicling the lives of people who had attained particularly high levels of success in their professions, including baseball and entrepreneurship. Both Bloom and Gladwell related that people do not become consummate models of accomplishment in their elds simply because they were born that way. Rather, these authors contend that people become the crme de la crme in their professions as a result of the complex interplay between what they bring to the table and the environmental conditions along the way that nurture, reinforce, and make possible their rise to the top. Under the right circumstances, any man or woman can become extraordinary at his or her craft; in academic school psychology the craft that must be cultivated is scholarly productivity. Although scholarly productivity is only one measure of success in academe, it is the benchmark against which high-stakes decisions about salary, promotion, and tenure are measured at research universities. Accordingly, successfully publishing research in peer-reviewed journal articles is the lifeblood of the graduate student seeking employment at a research university, the tenure-track assistant professor desiring tenure, and the tenured professor seeking promotion to full professor.

1.1. Productivity studies One challenge to face when attempting to study these environmental conditions, strategies, and resources is objectively identifying the most productive scholars. This challenge may be overcome by drawing on prior research using productivity indices which have been calculated in various ways including a simple numerical tally of how many publications a researcher has published and taking into account an author's position relative to his or her co-authors. The productivity indicator of program prestige has been applied in psychology (Webster, Hall, & Bolen, 1993), education (Hsieh et al., 2004) and school psychology (Davis, Zanger, Gerrard-Morris, Roberts, & Robinson, 2005; Kranzler, Grapin, & Daley, 2011; Roberts, Gerrard-Morris, Zanger, Davis, & Robinson, 2006). Little (1997) published the rst study about the most prolic authors publishing in six school psychology journals from 1987 to 1995. He employed three productivity metrics. First, he assigned equal credit to all authors. Second, he awarded credit to rst authors only. Third, he assigned authorship order credit based on the author position formula. Later, Davis et al. (2005) used the simple count method to identify the top 20 most productive authors across four school psychology journals from 1991 to 2003. Davis and colleagues noted the awed nature of the productivity score because it penalized collaboration by awarding lower scores to authors with more co-authors. As the elds of educational psychology broadly (Hsieh et al., 2004) and school psychology specically (Roberts, Gerrard-Morris, et al., 2006) become more collaborative,

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

693

author position metrics for determining productivity become especially obsolete. To support this position empirically, Roberts, Davis, Zanger, Gerrard-Morris, and Robinson (2006) applied both the simple count and author position methods to identify highly productive scholars in ve school psychology journals from 1996 to 2005. They found that for the top few most productive scholars, the identication metric applied was irrelevant to identifying them. The top ve most productive scholars identied by author order method were also identied in the top six using the simple count method. Several studies in the literature have investigated highly productive scholars' research repertoires. Tschannen-Moran and Nestor-Baker (2004) examined the tacit knowledge of 16 highly productive scholars in education. Data were sorted and coded yielding twelve categories of these scholars' tacit knowledge and strategies attributed to their high productivity (e.g., collaboration and social support, setting a research agenda, and publishing and coping with peer review). More recently, Mayrath (2008) asked 13 highly productive educational psychologists to respond by email to one question: If you were going to explain why you were so productive, what would you say? Scholars' responses were coded into four broad categories of attributions of highly productive scholars: (a) collaboration, (b) passion/curiosity, (c) research skills, and (d) time management. Data within each primary category were sorted into two to four sub-categories (e.g., for the passion/curiosity category, passion for their work and curiosity including skepticism were subcategories.) To date, there is no published study reporting the strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars in school psychology. The current study was designed to redress this gap, and it is anticipated that this scholarly counsel will serve as a guidepost for any research scholar intent on increasing his or her research publication record. For this research, we conducted two studies to illuminate the strategies and environmental conditions surrounding the most productive scholars in school psychology to date. It is our intention to serve the eld of school psychology by making available to all school psychology scholars, including future scholars in the eld, the practical information, skills, and strategies gleaned from the most highly productive scholars in our eld to date so all who desire can improve their scholarship and increase their research contributions to the eld of school psychology. The primary research questions were twofold: (a) How do school psychology scholars who are highly productive contributors to the school psychology literature manage to be so productive? and (b) What can we learn from them to increase our own productivity? 2. Study 1: Short-answer surveys 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants The sampling frame population included highly productive scholars who were recognized in at least one of three published studies (and the associated erratum for Roberts, Davis, et al., 2006) identifying highly productive scholars in school psychology (see Davis et al., 2005; Little, 1997; Roberts, Davis, et al., 2006). A pool of 94 highly productive scholars (23 women [24%], 71 men [76%]) was generated from the lists in the aforementioned studies. Email addresses were obtained for 91 of the living scholars; one highly productive scholar was deceased. After receiving Institutional Review Board approval from the authors' corresponding universities, we invited these scholars to participate by email. Emails consistently were returned for two highly productive scholars and three responded but declined participation. In total, 51 respondents (12 women [24%] women, 39 men [76%]) returned the completed survey, yielding a response rate of 56%. Participants received no compensation for their participation. 2.1.2. Instrumentation Various iterations of the survey were reviewed by seven scholars in school psychology, clinical psychology, and cognitive psychology who had experience as peer reviewers and editors, and revisions were made based on their feedback. The penultimate draft of the survey was reviewed by four associate editors for school psychology journals, and nal revisions were made based on their feedback. The nal survey consisted of ve brief questions distributed by email (see Table 1). The invitation email, sent to potential participants, included an introduction, a rationale for the study, and an attached Word document containing the survey. Below each question on the survey, a text box allowed participants to type their answers. No text limit was given to participants' replies. The ve questions solicited participants' comments about the following: (a) books, journal articles, and other reference resources focusing on the process of research and publication most valuable

694

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

Table 1 Questions included on the rst survey e-mailed to the most productive scholars. 1. What books or journal articles have you most frequently turned to during your career that you believe other scholars should possess, study, and apply to their research and writing? We are interested in knowing your most valuable reference texts or other resources focusing on professional publication, research methodology and statistics, theory, and ideals for practice. Note that you need not list resources in each category. Please provide as much reference information as possible for at least three books or articles. 2. What are the most important strategies you have employed to enhance your research productivity? We are interested in knowing about strategies related to the basic steps of research, such as project development, data collection, and data analysis. We welcome your listing of multiple strategies, but you need not list strategies for every step. 3. What are the most important strategies you have employed to enhance your writing productivity? We are most interested in knowing about practical strategies you have used to produce so many journal articles in your career. 4. What are the most important strategies you have employed to navigate through the peer-review process? We are interested in knowing about strategies you have used to determine optimal journal outlets for your research, to cope with and respond to reviewer feedback, and to engage in manuscript revision. We welcome your listing of multiple strategies, but you need not list strategies for every category. 5. What activities during your undergraduate or graduate education best prepared you to be productive in publishing? We are interested in knowing what training, mentoring experiences, or program requirements most enhanced your research and writing skills.

and worthwhile to recommend to others, (b) strategies and steps taken to foster research productivity, (c) strategies that have enhanced writing productivity, (d) strategies related to navigating the peer-review process, and (e) graduate and undergraduate education that best prepared one for future productivity. 2.1.3. Procedure In the spring of 2010, the highly productive scholars, based on the studies noted previously, were contacted by email and invited to participate in the current study. Email addresses were obtained through participants' university websites and by contacting other scholars in the eld with knowledge about participants whose emails were difcult to nd. Email invitations were sent in early February 2010 to potential participants asking them to return the short-answer survey (via email or snail mail) within one month. A reminder followed in mid-March to participants who had not yet responded. Two potential participants could not be contacted and three declined participation. In late March, personal appeals were made to potential participants who agreed to participate but had not yet returned a survey. 2.1.4. Data analysis Participants' responses to the survey questions (and associated unsolicited amendments provided by participants) were converted to rich text documents and uploaded to the qualitative data analysis software package, MAXQDA10 (http://www.maxqda.com), which assists researchers in managing, organizing, and sorting qualitative data sets. Analysis of the data began with a microanalysis that is used selectively and usually at the beginning of a project to generate ideas, to get the researcher deep into the data, and to focus in on pieces of data that seem relevant but whose meaning remains elusive (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 50). The rst and third authors (a tenured associate professor in school psychology and a second-year doctoral student in school psychology, respectively) conducted independent microanalyses of the data by carefully reading and rereading all short-answer surveys by respondent and then resorting and rereading the responses by question. The raw data (i.e., all responses) were analyzed as sentiments, or stand-alone beliefs and ideas, and grouped or coded into categories using constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Constant comparison is a means of interacting with data that allows researchers to draw conceptually similar concepts into broader categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Throughout the process of constant comparison, the researcher categorizes each sentiment into conceptually similar groups (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Sentiments in the current study varied in length from one word to a full paragraph. No sentiment was coded in more than one category, and sentiments expressed only once across participants were coded in a miscellaneous category and not included in the overall tally of expressed sentiments. After the rst and third authors developed a coding scheme, the rst author's coding scheme was used as the foundation for a subsequent line-item analysis conducted collaboratively by both authors. Both authors' coding schemes were open on the working desktop, and where there was a discrepancy in the coding of a particular sentiment, discussion took place until 100% consensus was reached and a nal draft of the coding scheme was produced. On the nal coding scheme, seven categories emerged from the analysis of 479 sentiments.

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

695

2.1.5. Data trustworthiness and coding scheme reliability check To increase credibility in the coding scheme, we invited two researchers (tenured professors in different school psychology programs with a combined 27 years experience in academe) to apply the coding scheme to half of the data. The rst author emailed the researchers a document containing the six categories and 50% of the data originally coded within each category. The researchers independently identied disagreements in the coding scheme by highlighting those disagreements in the document and returned the highlighted document to the rst author. Mean interrater reliability between the two researches across the six original codes was as follows: (a) Collaboration and building relationships (98%); (b) Preparation before entering the professoriate (96%); (c) Other noteworthy sentiments (100%); (d) Navigating the peer-review process (100%); (e) Personal character traits that foster productivity (100%); and (f) Research and publication practices and strategies (98.5%). 2.2. Results 2.2.1. Resources In the rst question, we asked highly productive scholars to recommend the books or journal articles they personally consider most valuable and believe other scholars should own, study, and apply to their research and writing. Table 2 lists (a) the 28 books, journal special issues, and journal articles which were cited more than once and (b) the total times each was cited. A complete list of all resources recommended can be obtained by emailing the rst author. The ve resources cited by four or more scholars included two prominent texts devoted to school psychology research and practice (i.e., Reynolds and Gutkin's The Handbook of School Psychology and Thomas and Grimes's Best Practices in School Psychology), two advanced research methods texts (i.e., Campbell and Stanley's Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research and Shadish, Cook, and Campbell's Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference), and two texts devoted to professional writing style and formatting, (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association [2009] and Strunk and White's The Elements of Style [1999]).1 Of those 28 books cited more than once, 8 (29%) focused on research design, 7 (25%) focused on statistical analysis, 4 (14%) focused on school psychology foundations and its practices (e.g., assessment and intervention), 4 (14%) focused on psychological measurement (e.g., validity), 3 (11%) focused on psychological theory guiding theory and practice, and 2 (4%) focused on writing. 2.2.2. Sentiments The remaining responses to the four questions on the short-answer survey were analyzed using the methods described previously. We coded 479 sentiments and broadly categorized them into the following seven higher-order categories: (a) collaboration, mentoring, and building relationships, (b) research and publication practices and strategies, (c) navigating the peer-review process, (d) strategies to bolster writing productivity and excellence, (e) personal character traits that foster productivity, (f) preparation before entering the professoriate, and (g) other noteworthy sentiments. Sentiments were further categorized into subcategories within the higher-order categories. The categories and subcategories were consistent with previous research about highly productive authors (e.g., Mayrath, 2008). Table 3 lists the higher- and lower-order categories and dispersal of coded sentiments across categories. In the following sections, we describe each of the seven categories in greater detail and substantiate the descriptions using verbatim responses provided by the highly productive scholars. 2.2.3. Collaboration, mentoring and building relationships Building relationships and collaborating on scholarly activities was the most common strategy accounting for the participants' high levels of scholarly productivity. In all, 86 (17.95%) of the overall sentiments pertained to collaborations with colleagues, students, and schools. Highly productive scholars partake in active research groups and share article authorship. They maintain that you don't need to be rst author on

1 Due to variation in the manner in which participants referenced books, we have referred to them in general terms, when possible, yet cited their most recent editions.

696

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

Table 2 Resources cited more than once by highly productive scholars. Reference Books Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (Eds.). (1999). The handbook of school psychology. New York: Wiley. Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.) (2008). Best practices in school psychology V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC: Author. Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifin. Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (1999). The Elements of Style (4th ed.) New York: Longman. Barlow, D. H., Hayes, S. C. & Nelson, R. O. (1984). The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in clinical and educational settings. New York: Pergamon. Campbell, D. T., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for eld settings. Boston: Houghton Mifin. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2008). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson. Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (8th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association., National Council on Measurement in Education., & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (2002). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates. Cormier, W. H., Bounds, W. G., & Huck, S. W. (1974). Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper & Row. Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (2000). Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Jensen, A. R. (1980) Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. Jensen, A. R., & Nyborg, H. (2003). The scientic study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Boston: Pergamon. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College. Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacic Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations. San Diego: Author Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientic research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. Boston: Authors Cooperative. Times cited 8 7 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Journal special issue Akin-Little, K. A., Little, S. G., & Gresham, F. G. (2004). Current perspectives on school-based behavioral interventions 2 [Special Issue]. School Psychology Review, 33(3). Journal articles Cronbach, L. J, & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281302. 2 Meehl, P., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efciency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting 2 scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194216.

every publication by working with 2 or 3 other colleagues, you can increase your productivity as they take the lead on a project or two in addition to your own projects. These highly productive scholars advise others to form partnerships with other researchers [to] take on different roles on different projects, including rst author, senior/last author, and other author. Highly productive scholars surround [themselves] with talented, productive people and in so doing build relationships as they network with others and join forces to build active research teams. These relationships help some scholars with accountability. One highly productive scholar commented: I think collaborating helps me. It keeps me accountable. It doesn't matter if it is a colleague or a student who is writing with me. If I give them a deadline for my portion of the writing project I am more likely to meet the deadline.

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720 Table 3 Higher- and lower-order categories and dispersal of coded sentiments across categories.

697

# of coded % of total coded sentiments sentiments I. Research and publication practices and strategies 152 1. Know the journals, identify optimal outlet and consider your audience 32 2. Organization, time management and prioritization 30 3. Getting started on a manuscript 24 4. Find your niche/expertise, pursue it vigorously, and conduct systematic research that builds 20 on initial success 5. Keep learning, read widely, and stay current in the literature 15 6. Publish in reputable journals 8 7. Always have something in the hopper 7 8. Funding for research 5 9. Archival vs. new data sets 8 10. Know cutting-edge statistics and how to analyze your own data properly 3 II. Collaboration, mentoring, and building relationships 86 1. Collaborate with good students and mentor future researchers 28 2. General collaboration and building relationships 21 3. Collaborate and network with good colleagues 20 4. Be part of an active research team and apportion responsibilities 15 5. Collaborate with schools 2 III. Navigating the peer-review process 73 1. Take peer reviews seriously, address revisions thoroughly, and learn from constructive 39 feedback 2. Don't take criticism and rejection personally 11 3. Rewrite, revise, and resubmit without delay 10 4. Become a reviewer 7 5. Avoid journals that provide rude reviews 4 6. Contact the editor 2 IV. Strategies to bolster writing productivity and excellence 61 1. Have a protected writing time or place 25 2. Pursue writing excellence, revise your work, seek feedback and practice writing frequently 25 3. Submit highest quality work on rst submission 7 4. Model good writing and develop a template for writing manuscripts 4 V. Personal character traits that foster productivity 53 1. Persistence, discipline, and really hard work 25 2. Interest, curiosity, exibility, creativity, and passion 20 3. Just do it! 4 4. Capitalize on good luck 2 5. Have the courage to publish (unpopular) results 2 VI. Preparation before entering the professoriate 46 1. Worked with faculty who were good role models, who provided mentorship, and who 21 published a lot 2. Was not mentored or given the preparation to become a researcher during graduate school 9 3. Importance of taking excellent coursework, especially in inquiry methods 8 4. Published as a graduate student 8 VII. Other noteworthy sentiments 8 1. Engender synergy between research and teaching 5 2. Embrace qualitative research 3 Summary of all sentiments 479 31.73% 6.68% 6.26% 5.01% 4.18% 3.13% 1.67% 1.46% 1.04% 1.67% 0.63% 17.95% 5.85% 4.38% 4.18% 3.13% 0.42% 15.24% 8.14% 2.30% 2.09% 1.46% 0.84% 0.42% 12.73% 5.22% 5.22% 1.46% 0.84% 11.06% 5.22% 4.18% 0.84% 0.42% 0.42% 9.60% 4.38% 1.88% 1.67% 1.67% 1.67% 1.04% 0.63% 100.00%

Another highly productive scholar lamented waiting until much later in his career to work with others to advance his research program. He commented, I learned this too late in my career, but my productivity over the past 56 years has quadrupled, thanks mostly to the opportunities afforded by collaboration. Simply stated, working together with other scholars who are productive and writing about the same things seems to be a factor in the successful research careers of many highly productive scholars in school psychology. These scholars imparted considerable detail about ways in which they collaborate with others during all stages of their research projects, participating in dynamic, active research teams and delegating responsibilities to both graduate and undergraduate students. They also meet regularly with their research teams, brainstorm to discuss new ideas, and keep a dynamic lineup of participants that welcomes volunteers

698

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

[to conduct research]. Highly productive scholars capitalize on all collaborators' competencies by identify [ing] team limitations and form[ing] partnerships to address gaps in expertise. As one highly productive scholar commented many hands make lighter work and two heads are better than one so [scholars should] develop a team to facilitate projects. In addition to collaborating with their peers, highly productive scholars collaborate with their own research mentors as well as with graduate and undergraduate students. In particular, the scholars in our survey commented repeatedly about the importance of mentoring and collaborating with their students. They commented that it is essential to work with able graduate students and listen to their suggestions. Furthermore, collaborating with capable students is essential as you don't always have the time to do data collection yourself. Highly productive scholars are committed to nurturing students interested in research and involving them in current research efforts. One highly productive scholar involves undergraduate and graduate students at all levels of the research process: I have undergraduates score/enter data/make tables and I have graduate students help with writing and analyzing data [with appropriate authorship]. Highly productive scholars are steadfast about furthering their program of research, but they also foster student research interests. One highly productive scholar commented that while he has a primary line of research, [he] regularly engage[s] with students to design/implement at least one fun study on a different but maybe related topic. Moreover, highly productive scholars encourage many student papers and publications where they [the student] take the lead on some and [the highly productive scholar] on others to publish and present papers. For one highly productive scholar, collaborating with his graduate students has been a major aspect of his successful research career: Another feature of collaboration that has advanced my career has been collaborating with my graduate students. I have had the good fortune to work with extremely bright and talented graduate students for over 35 years. During this time I have had students who have challenged me, advanced my thinking, and have later contributed major developments and components to the eld of school psychology, psychology, and education. It is this collaboration with students that has improved my own professional contributions to the eld in remarkable ways. In fact, I continue to collaborate with my former students over the years. Highly productive scholars also use collaboration with their graduate students as the platform from which they mentor and prepare future scholars. These scholars provide opportunities to competent, interested grad students to co-author papers, and they even engage them in the [peer] review process. One scholar describes what the process is all about for him and his students: I treat [my graduate student advisees] as partners in the creative scholarship and research enterprise, and give them responsibility for returning and reporting on their assignments. This helps me to be more productive, keeps me accountable, and is a great socialization strategy to develop young scholars. The graduate students get a lot out of this publications, presentation opportunities, and mentorship for careers. Many of my research team members have gone on to successful careers as scholars. Although nearly all highly productive scholars commented that they pursue scholarly efforts by collaborating with others, these scholars are particularthey don't collaborate with just anybody. Many highly productive scholars repeatedly remarked about the importance of having the right collaborators, working with good people, and collaborating with competent colleagues. As one highly productive scholar succinctly put it, collaborate with others who know more and different than you do. These scholars share their efforts with responsible, ethical and productive colleagues. They emphasized working closely with gifted colleagues in measurement and research and interacting with researchers from other disciplines. One highly productive scholar noted that collaborating with a variety of researchers has created an opportunity for widening my experiences and knowledge base/depth and scope of research in signicant waysallow [ing] me to keep learning and using novel techniques in important ways, strengthening the research studies immensely. Similarly, another highly productive scholar advocated: Collaborate with other researchers who complement your skill areas without duplicating them; for example, if you are strong in a content area and want to conduct research in that content area, then try to

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

699

collaborate with someone who is strong in research methods and statistics, even if he or she knows little or nothing about your preferred content area. If the collaboration proves fruitful, then conduct a series of studies with that person. 2.2.4. Research and publication practices and strategies Highly productive scholars shared many of the practices and strategies that have made their prolic research careers viable. Indeed, 152 (31.73%) different sentiments regarded the scholars' particular research practices and strategies. A widely held sentiment among highly productive scholars is that a researcher must rst familiarize himself or herself with a variety of prospective journal outlets. Highly productive scholars discussed actively studying and saturating their knowledge about various journal outlets with the goal of discovering the mission of the journal and nding a good t for their work. One highly productive scholar noted that it was essential to understand the kinds of articles and topics published by each journal before deciding if his work was a match to the journal. Another highly productive scholar spends time reviewing the articles in a particular journal, which he noted provides a very good sample of topics, length, and writing style appropriate to that journal. One highly productive scholar commented that he has come to know the various journals well enough that it is fairly obvious from the outset which outlet would be most appropriate for each piece of writing. Another aspect of manuscriptjournal t that several highly productive scholars discussed was knowing their audience and purposefully selecting outlets that reached the broadest possible audience for the topic. Although most highly productive scholars shared how important it was to carefully consider a journal's reputation before submitting their manuscripts for peer review, there was no consensus among the scholars about whether one should always aim for publishing exclusively in journals with the highest impact factors. One highly productive scholar shared that he do[es] not always shoot for the highest quality outlet for every piece but rather [he] tr[ies] to match the manuscript to the journal in terms of audience and quality. On the other hand, some highly productive scholars always aim to publish in journals with high impact factors to ensure the widest distribution of their work. One highly productive scholar commented that researchers ought to try to publish in journals that have high impact factors. You may have made a great discovery, but if no one reads or cites it, there is less chance that it will have any inuence on advancing the discipline or area. If new researchers are unsure of which journal to submit a particular manuscript, highly productive scholars recommend starting with school psychology friendly journals and also seeking the advice of more experienced scholars to determine where to publish [one's] work. In sum, the overall sentiment among these highly productive scholars centers on familiarizing oneself with available and relevant journal outlets and submitting one's work to the highest rated journal possible, considering the target audience. Another comment made by a highly productive scholar offers this practical nugget of wisdom about deciding where to submit one's work: I have heard prominent scholars in the eld say that they keep a mental list of journals ranked by prestige. Starting at the top of the list, whenever their work is rejected by a journal, they keep sending the paper to the next journal on the list, and follow this process until it is accepted somewhere. This sounds systematic; however, it requires much stamina. Highly productive scholars prioritize research and they actively and systematically work on advancing their research agendas. These scholars jealously guard and organize their daily, weekly, and monthly schedules around their research practices. For them, scheduling time for research is just as sacrosanct as teaching a class. Another reason highly productive scholars accomplish so much lies in their organizational skills. Many set articial deadlines to keep themselves accountable and stay on track. One shared that he make[s] public deadlines so I have [a] commitment to colleagues [and] students. Another organizational strategy shared by several highly productive scholars is to have a master calendar of all research activities and progress. One highly productive scholar follows a master calendar for the 9 months [with] an emphasis on the month and weekly to do lists. Overall, it is evident that essential ingredients for a successful research career for many highly productive scholars emphasize excellent time management, exceptional organization, and a clear vision for the evolution of their research. One highly productive scholar shared his conception of time management: I must say that over time I have learned some pretty extraordinary time management strategies. I have become extremely efcient in the work that I do, and the combination of good time management,

700

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

advanced planning, and high motivation have been a recipe for success. My time management has allowed me to juggle not only professional work but also hobbies that consume major amounts of time.

2.2.4.1. Getting started. Highly productive scholars revealed their rules of thumb for embarking on any new research study or project. Many highly productive scholars, though not all, conceptualize a new project by considering the underlying theoretical framework to guide the work. They emphasized that there is nothing more practical than a good theory and that, in general, researchers must advance theories and improve practices. Another highly productive scholar begins his research projects by attempting to resolve practical problems in the eld. He noted that the most useful strategy has been to address presenting problems (i.e., do not tell educators what problems they have, but let them tell you and then address them, collaboratively). Several highly productive scholars also discussed advantages and disadvantages of collecting new data versus using archival data sets. Some commented that archival data sets allow for more productivity since they permit [one] to conduct several studies on the same topic. Another noted, in using archival datasets, no time or very little time is used in the data collection process. Also such datasets provide me with much better quality data than I can produce on my own. On the other hand, other highly productive scholars were adamant about collecting their own data, and one has even made data collection a top priority in my job. Another highly productive scholar commented that a good question is a better/easier foundation for research than data availability. He further warned other scholars not to be misled by available data; it's easier/better to design a study to answer a good question than (to) try to invent a question that can be answered by extant data. Another practical aspect of getting started with research has to do with having necessary funding to carry out all aspects of a research study. A few highly productive scholars discussed the importance of research funding. For one highly productive scholar grant monies provide freedom and support writing papers and products is the culminating point. Another commented that seeking external funding support for my projects enhance(s) the likelihood that I can pay participants [and] hire students to help with data collection and preliminary analyses, and I can have funds to allow me to present research reports at professional meetings. Many highly productive scholars also offered some practical suggestions about beginning to write a new manuscript. However, there was no general conformity among the scholars about what section of the manuscript to write rst. Suggestions included the following: (a) establish the tables that will be included rst, (b)outline the major subsections of a comprehensive discussion, and (c) write hypotheses rst, then write an abstract, even start by thinking about what data you would like to collect. On the other hand, there was consensus about one thinghighly productive scholars are prolic readers, and for many of them, reading widely is the actual starting point of any new research endeavor. Highly productive scholars remain informed about the literature and innovative research methodologies by engaging in self-study, audit[ing] courses and read[ing] broadly in psychology. Highly productive scholars read and read more. They counsel other researchers to read widely and recommend reect[ing] on what you read in relation to your focused area of research. Highly productive scholars concur that being familiar with current literature helps them advance science. Knowledge of current literature permits scholars to identify key issues and questions which need further inquiry or have not been addressed sufciently. In particular, highly productive scholars recommend conduct[ing] exhaustive literature searches on topics of interest to identify gaps in the literature (because) these gaps translate directly to topics that are in need of innovative research. Highly productive scholars also recommend mov[ing] away from an over-researched problem. One highly productive scholar illustrates how he familiarizes himself with the literature before he begins any new research project: The rst strategy is to engage in extensive reading and wide-scale assessment of the existing literature in a particular topical area prior to beginning a project. I typically spend several days (sometimes over a period of several weeks) reviewing articles and materials related to a particular topic or project that I am about to begin. Specically, I spend a great deal of time reading the original sources, research reviews, and summaries of the existing literature in a particular area. This process

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

701

has always helped me to develop my thinking and conceptual frameworks for advancing my own research and writing. Many highly productive scholars commented on the importance of setting in motion a systematic and planful program of research that is progressive, programmatic, and builds on initial successes. Several scholars advised against a shotgun approach to conducting research. They encourage new scholars to nd a niche early and pursue it vigorously. One highly productive scholar articulated this particular sentiment succinctly: It (is) essential that scholars be able to articulate their research program and be able to look down the road, beyond a particular study, to others that might be logical next steps, depending on results obtained. Several highly productive scholars suggested capitalizing on synergistic efforts or collecting data linked to multiple projects, and writ[ing] more than one study about the topic to help ensure that scholars set in motion a systematic, cohesive program of research. Further, synergistic research efforts appear to facilitate efciency. As one highly productive scholar noted I try to make my projects relate to one another so that there is cohesiveness to the projects. I nd that doing related studies means that we can share the same experimental preparations across projects, helping us be more efcient. Another highly productive scholar regularly makes every attempt to write a paper presentation, literature review, grant application, and original research study with each effort. In addition to pursuing a systematic line of research, many scholars are highly prolic in their area of expertise because they pursue depth over breadth by stay[ing] within [their] area of expertise and pursu[ing] only research questions [that they are] intensely interested in. Another manifest strategy key to the success of many highly productive scholars is that they generally always have something in the hopper. One highly productive scholar commented that it is essential to get several projects going at one time and be able to shift focus from one to another. For these highly productive scholars, it is helpful to have research projects and writing projects at various stages of development [because] there is no point in having too much down time while waiting to hear back on editorial decisions regarding manuscripts already under review. One highly productive scholar shared his rule of thumb: I have followed what I call the rule of 2. Two manuscripts/chapters in press, two under review, two in the works, and two on the drawing board/data collection. As long as I can keep the rule of 2 going I've been able to keep up my productivity. Highly productive scholars offered different suggestions concerning how many projects or programs of research are optimal to move forward simultaneously. One highly productive scholar suggested develop[ing] two or three viable programs of research. Another highly productive scholar engage[s] in ve or six research studies simultaneously as they progress at different rates. And a third highly productive scholar focus[es] on no more than three writing projects at time. Others recommended think[ing] small or limiting one's efforts to one or two projects at one time. As one highly productive scholar noted, too often, new researchers want to solve the problems of the world or answer all of the big questions in one study. In sum, highly productive scholars' collective wisdom indicates that one should simply yet systematically even relentlessly pursue a topic or small number of related topics of intense personal interest. Highly productive scholars have an innate curiosity and passion for their work. They pursue research questions that they are intensely interested in. They collectively advise others to nd their passion and contribute in areas in which you have a natural interest. One highly productive scholar commented, For me, follow your bliss! If you are intrinsically motivated to examine an issue, I believe this goes a long way towards enhancing research productivity. 2.2.5. Navigating the peer-review process Prolicacy requires frequent acceptance of submitted manuscripts. Respondents' remarks about navigating the peer-review process provide valuable insight into a highly germane aspect of scholarship. Highly productive scholars made 73 comments (15.2%) about the importance of taking reviewer feedback seriously while avoiding defensiveness. It is noteworthy to mention that a few highly productive scholars lamented the horribly awed peer-review process. One example provided by a highly productive scholar stated our eld has not published negative results studies and so we have a knowledge base built on positive ndings that happen to make it in the journals. Nevertheless, another highly productive scholar stated in most cases the process is fair and the suggestions make our papers much, much better. Several highly productive scholars also noted that becoming

702

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

a reviewer enhances one's own scholarship quality. Although not all reviewers are accurate in their conclusions, scholars ought to pay attention to the reviewers and try to see the article through [the reviewer's] eyes. One highly productive scholar observed: In most cases, manuscripts can be revised, and it behooves us as researchers to take on the task and, in many cases, the recommendations may be actually quite positive. One needs to accept at the outset that there are going to be many criticisms and alternative ideas expressed; therefore, it is important not to take the reviewer comments as a dismissal or a negative perspective on our work. Along this line, highly productive scholars compose a detailed letter to accompany revisions that clearly elucidates the changes they made and provide precise rationale for why certain changes suggested by reviewers were not made. One highly productive scholar suggested that, the most important product one produces is the letter to the editor that goes along with a revised/resubmitted piece. Indeed, doing so mak[es] it really easy for the editor to see that the revision is desirable. Further, laying out the rationale for what you did (not) change and why is essential for getting the piece into print. Another highly productive scholar noted that he only responded to every reviewer comment when instructed to by the action editor; however, most respondents urged researchers to address all points of reviewer feedback thoughtfully. If questions remain about a particular review, some highly productive scholars advised call[ing] the editor [because] reviewers may have important feedback, but the editor decides which feedback is most important. A sentiment commonly noted was captured in the following quotation: Feedback is better than praise [and] one must put ego aside, accept the feedback provided, and make the necessary alterations as appropriate. Additionally, highly productive scholars urge researchers to take peer reviewers' comments seriously when deciding how best to proceed after a manuscript is rejected. These highly productive scholars urge persistence in trying to get a manuscript published and caution inexperienced researchers [not to] misinterpret a revise/resubmit decision from an editor as a rejection. One highly productive scholar commented, When an article is rejected or if a substantial revision is requested, the odds are great that at least some of the points made by reviewers [are] salient and merit consideration. Be sure to make those modications before resubmitting the article anywhere. Highly productive scholars noted that major criticisms should be addressed even if the authors intend to resubmit to a different journal, although some reported success submitting manuscripts to alternative outlets unchanged or minimally revised. In addition, it seems that highly productive scholars who learn from the peer-review process are likely to improve their work progressively and advance the eld. These scholars nd the peer-review process instructive; they benet from careful reviews and perceive rejections and revisions as mechanisms to improve their work rather than as evidence that they have failed. Highly productive scholars counsel that one should not be afraid of well done reviews [because] they can make your manuscript better. Again, the peer-review process is viewed by most scholars as a form of collaboration among colleagues; in the words of one highly productive scholar, take feedback from reviewers seriously; this is a collaboration and one can learn a lot. Highly productive scholars counseled others against becoming defensive and allowing emotions to take over following reviewer feedback. They acknowledged that the peer-review process can discourage you and acknowledge that coping with reviewer feedback requires effort (especially for the young researcher). After receiving peer feedback, one highly productive scholar does the following: I read reviews, then ignore them for about a week or so before I re-read them and begin revision. It's just too close to jump from reading to revision; I need to let the feedback simmer before I'm ready to respond. I remind myself of some of the things I've said about other people's work, and remember that I've probably learned more from reviews than from reading over the years. It helps take some of the sting out of the process. Several other highly productive scholars also noted that they allow feedback to simmer by permitting some time to pass between initially receiving a review and beginning revisions; time allows for a more dispassionate reading. One highly productive scholar remarked that even when he does not agree with reviewer feedback, he encourages himself by keeping in mind that revisions present an opportunity to clarify [his] thinking (which

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

703

probably was not communicated well enough in the rst place). Indeed, keeping a positive attitude when receiving negative reviews is helpful, even essential. One highly productive scholar commented: I don't let negative feedback and rejection deter me. Scholars in almost any eld have a tendency to be rigid, uptight, and to expect higher standards of other's work than they do of their own. Thus, you need to expect that some reviewers and editors won't like your work, and it may get rejected. That's just part of the process and you need to be willing to consider other possible outlets and to let the negative feedback improve future work, but not discourage you. Conversely, highly productive scholars actively avoid submitting their manuscripts to journals where they have received rude reviews. One advised others to avoid a journal if they can't provide some sort of positive feedback even with a reject. Essentially, highly productive scholars advise, return(ing) to journals where you have been treated with respect, given timely and constructive feedback. One highly productive scholar commented on the importance of the journal associate editors in the process: An outstanding associate editor makes all the difference. Someone who synthesizes individual reviewers' comments and recommendations to provide an author with explanation regarding an editorial decision and/or guidance regarding ways to improve a manuscript is very helpful to an author. Someone who simply passes along the individual reviews, which can be in conict or not even very well done is of little help to the author, and I believe this shows in the quality of the journal and what it publishes. Based on my familiarity, I have tended to submit to journals under the leadership of the former and avoid those of the latter. Highly productive scholars revise and turn their work around quickly, even when (they) are otherwise busy. This seems to be a priority and one highly productive scholar commented that it has been rare in my experience to have something accepted without revision. Also, I don't recall an article [for which] I resubmitted post revision that wasn't accepted. A few other highly productive scholars stressed how important it is to get a manuscript back out there and when it's a reject, sending it onto another journal immediately. Most highly productive scholars have improved their scholarship and productivity by serving on editorial review boards. These scholars maintain that participating in the review process as referees gives them a greater appreciation of the intricacies of the peer-review process, allows them to be better able to anticipate criticism, and keeps them abreast of the latest knowledge in the eld. Evaluating others' writing has allowed these scholars to improve their own work. One highly productive scholar noted that reviewing helps you ne-tune the presentation of your own work for publication. Another highly productive scholar said that reviewing helped me gure out the habits and unwritten criteria for each journal [and] seeing what other reviewers and the action editor note regarding manuscripts that I have reviewed has also helped a lot. 2.2.6. Strategies to bolster writing productivity and excellence With 12.73% (n = 61) of the sentiments, strategies to bolster writing productivity and excellence address one of the very practical and requisite aspects of being a highly productive scholar. Many highly productive scholars in this study noted that writing is most easily accomplished when time to write is both regularly scheduled and protected. Highly productive scholars noted how important it is to block off, set aside, and schedule time simply to write. One highly productive scholar acknowledged that doing so is incredibly difcult given the competing demands of the academic life and suggested that protected writing days be scheduled off campus. Some highly productive scholars also endorsed working from home as a way to focus on writing, while others mentioned writing on nights and weekends rather than attempting to nd time during already packed workday schedules. A number of other highly productive scholars discussed specic schedules that foster their own writing productivity, such as particular writing days or parts of days (e.g., 5:00 AM until work is supposed to start and I write on a schedule which is typically in the morning and I stop writing before lunch) set aside entirely for writing and protected against distractions. One highly productive scholar advised writers to set aside time each week for writing and urged them simply, "Don't give [the time] up.

704

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

Although nearly all highly productive scholars agreed that devoting time specically to writing allows for greater productivity, they differed in how they most efciently use this protected time. Some work best when they schedule small chunks of time between other daily activities: I feel like if I wait until I have a lot of time to write it won't happen I have tried to adopt the philosophy of just turning to a writing project when I have time (even if it is a smaller amount of time than I would like). Another highly productive scholar urged others to write every day [e]ven if it is an hour at a time. One highly productive scholar says: I am required to write one page a day and I monitor my progress on a daily basis. I also graph my results. Conversely, another noted that he is a burst writer and needs longer periods of time to pound out documents and does not write efciently within one- or twohour blocks. Yet another highly productive scholar writes best in mass quantities rather than spreading things out. Aspiring scholars will benet from nding the writing times and places that work best for them, knowing that different strategies match different work styles. Several highly productive scholars remarked about the importance of learning to write well by pursuing excellence, seeking feedback on their writing, and practicing regularly. These scholars edit, re-edit, and then re-edit their own work. One highly productive scholar succinctly counsels: Become a student of writing. Writing excels when you practice, practice, practice. Two scholars recommended Stephen King's text, On Writing, and one commented: I don't read his ction, but I respect [King's] productivity. In this book on the writing process, he said he devotes so many hours each day at a set time and simply sits down and tries to write at least a minimum number of pages during those hours. Then he walks away. That type of effort has served me well. I don't write around the clock anymore, but I devote time to writing on a regular basis, and I simply expect that I need to produce a few pages each time. Highly productive scholars approach writing in a very practical way and several disclosed that they have discover[ed] the template necessary for writing quality research-based articles. Indeed, one highly productive scholar has been successful in his research career by looking for formulaic ways to construct a manuscript based on articles already published in [a particular] journal. Other highly productive scholars acknowledged that they hone in on particular authors' writing style and try to incorporate it in [their] own writing. Another highly productive scholar divulged that he cuts and pastes sections of articles that I think are really neat and want to include some component into [a] writing list [so I] can keep track of everything in one place. It may be encouraging for many readers to know that for some highly productive scholars, writing is the hardest part of the research process. One highly productive scholar revealed that he is a a very slow writer because I do lots of revisions. Another even disclosed that I've never considered myself a particularly good writer so it is more effortful for me than others I think. Many of the comments regarding high-quality writing echoed the sentiments expressed pertaining to the peer-review process. That is, when it comes to their writing, highly productive scholars take advantage of opportunities to write and receive feedback. More specically, these scholars' best writing is writing that has been carefully reviewed and edited by himself or herself as well as other collaborators. Highly productive scholars counsel other scholars to seek feedback from experienced scholars and use that feedback to make your work better. It is noteworthy that for highly productive scholars, the intense scrutiny and revision of their work is done before submitting a piece of work to journals for publication consideration. Highly productive scholars submit their best work from the start; they are meticulous in ensuring that they submit nearly perfect drafts the rst time. One highly productive scholar commented: The submitted article must be crisp and terse and interesting and apply the very best statistical and measurement methods. Try to preempt methodological issues by giving more detail and evidence. You can always cut back later after you have passed the hurdle of being encouraged to revise and condense.

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

705

2.2.7. Personal character traits that foster productivity Eleven percent (n = 53) of the overall sentiments were coded in the category about personal character traits that bolster the scholars' exceptional productivity. The most striking and frequent traits to emerge from the data were that highly productive scholars are persistent, disciplined, and hard working. To be sure, one highly productive scholar commented, Persistence is probably more important than intelligence in research success. Another highly productive scholar commented how he taught himself early on the discipline to stick at work for extraordinary periods of time. Highly productive scholars also used selfdescriptive traits such as perseverance, persistent, open-minded, and patient to describe what makes them so productive. Highly productive scholars work at it constantly and they never give up. Another motto among highly productive scholars seems to be: Just do it! Several highly productive scholars expressed that they had to let go of perfection and simply get the job done. One highly productive scholar advised, don't delay, focus on specic writing activities and do it NOW do it immediately done, next thing to write move on. Another highly productive scholar observed that we spend too much time thinking/talking about research and writing, and not enough time doing them. Moreover, highly productive scholars recognize and take advantage of times when luck is on their side. A few highly productive scholars commented about being open to unlikely opportunities. One highly productive scholar even credits a large portion of his high level of research productivity to good luck: Another feature that cannot be downplayed and that has contributed to my successful career in research and publishing has simply been good fortune, or what people might commonly refer to as good luck. In many cases, I have been, for various reasons, at the right place at the right time, and therefore able to embrace opportunities that otherwise might not have been a strong inuence. So, it is in many ways that the destiny of events in history and my embracing these events that have prompted and promoted my own professional development over time. 2.2.8. Preparation before entering the professoriate We asked highly productive scholars to comment on the activities and experiences inuencing their high productivity before entering the professoriate. They provided 46 (9.60%) sentiments about beginning their publishing careers as graduate students, either on their own or by working with faculty mentors who involved them with publishing early in their graduate careers. A few highly productive scholars commented on the ways their graduate (and undergraduate, in one case) coursework prepared them to become prolic scholars. Requirements to write papers and taking advanced stat courses were instrumental to laying the groundwork for future scholarship. Additionally, during graduate school many, although not all, highly productive scholars had great collaborative relationships with their advisors. These scholars worked with faculty who were effective role models, who provided mentorship, and who published considerably. One highly productive scholar commented that as a grad student, I was encouraged to present at conferences and co-author papers with my advisor. Several other highly productive scholars credited being very active in working with a productive faculty member as a graduate student and modeling behavior of [a] major professor with helping them in their early development as researchers. It seems that for many scholars observing the productivity level and the research process of [a] mentor, attending a graduate program that encouraged graduate students to publish, and being mentored by faculty who involved students in their research activities were instrumental in laying the early foundation for their prolic research careers. One highly productive scholar commented: Working with a mentor/major professor closely in the research and publication process can be absolutely invaluable in helping you learn to navigate the process. Most of the activities and things one needs to learn in research and particularly in the publication process are not taught in classes. Another highly productive scholar credits his current status as highly productive to his training and experience before entering the professoriate: I had the good fortune to have wonderful faculty mentors were able to provide me with feedback, but also the support that I needed to be productive in professional writing. I had the good fortune to

706

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

have critical commentary from my mentors in graduate school in terms of professional writing, research design and statistics, and the journal review process. Had I not had early mentoring in the process of submitting work for publication, I probably would have headed in quite a different direction in my career and that probably would be primarily practice in a school setting (which would have been very personally rewarding). Nevertheless, with this mentoring experience I was able to move forward into an academic career and feel a sense of efcacy and competence in professional research and writing. Notwithstanding all of the positive graduate school experiences many highly productive scholars reported, others reported that they did not receive adequate guidance or mentoring in research as a graduate student. One highly productive scholar noted that although I tapped different people's input [I] did not have one mentor so to speak. Another commented most of what I learned I learned on my own. I had little research mentoring in undergraduate or graduate school. I learned more by trial and error than by anything else." Some highly productive scholars expressed their disappointment (even to this day) with the lack of research guidance they received during graduate school. Nonetheless, despite limited to nonexistent mentorship during graduate school, resilient scholars nd a way to learn the ropes and can eventually become highly productive scholars. One highly productive scholar illustrated: I received very little research mentorship during either my undergraduate or graduate training. This was a plus and a minus. The drawbacks are obvious. It took me 34 years of very hard work to get published on a regular basis. On the positive side, I was forced to pull myself up by my own bootstraps. Although this process was very hard on me, I learned an enormous amount by doing it. 2.2.9. Other noteworthy sentiments The nal category accounts for the fewest items (1.67%, n = 8); nonetheless, they warrant mention. Although investigating the strategies highly productive scholars successfully employ is the primary purpose of this study, a few of their responses revealed how the synergistic relationship between their research and teaching improves their scholarship and bolsters their research productivity: Teaching in many ways helped me prepare for scientic contributions because I had to do some writing to outline the content of my teaching activities. And teaching content always claried my thinking on a topic. Nevertheless, this process typically necessitated pretty extensive time commitment and work over a long period of time but was very helpful. One highly productive scholar actively search[es] for overlaps within teaching, research, and extension/engagement and counsels other scholars try to teach courses [closest] to your scholarship. Yet another highly productive scholar noted, I teach what I research and research what I teach. Using my research as part of my teaching allows me to think about my research in different ways while being more efcient. Similarly, another highly productive scholar observed: When research questions come to mind, mostly based on questions of practice, I try to begin to think about or outline different ways they might be addressed. Even if I do not get to them, and that's most of the time, they help [with] teaching classes since they represent questions the eld may not have sufcient information about and we can think about the qualities of information needed so that the question might be addressed. 2.3. Discussion Scholarly productivity, operationalized by publications in peer-reviewed journals, weighs heavily on high-stakes research position searches as well as tenure and promotion decisions. Consequently, publishing one's scientic work is indisputably one of the principal responsibilities of the tenure-track school psychology assistant professor and future tenure-track school psychology professor. Indeed, at research universities, decisions about salary, promotion, and tenure generally are based on research contributions over teaching and service (Nihalani & Mayrath, 2008). One of the greatest fears of the new tenure-track assistant

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

707

professor is whether he or she will earn tenure. Consequently, greater transparency about what makes highly productive scholars in school psychology so productive could be of tremendous benet to young scholars striving to become productive enough to earn tenure, and such knowledge might aid seasoned scholars in making more frequent and impactful contributions to the eld. The rst study sought to make a contribution to the literature about highly productive scholars in school psychology by asking the most prolic current scholars two questions: (a) How do school psychology scholars who are highly productive contributors to the school psychology literature manage to be so productive? and (b) What can we learn from them to increase our own productivity? Drawing from Bloom's (1985) work, we conclude that virtually any current school psychology student or emerging scholar can become a more productive researcher if he or she employs the strategies shared by the highly productive scholars described in the rst study. The sentiments expressed are supported in past literature on highly productive researchers in academe. For example, Kiewra (2008) culled from his experience and offered advice to new scholars: (a) follow your bliss, (b) spend and create time, (c) build collaborative relationships, (d) hone technique, and (e) frame failure. Likewise, Tschannen-Moran and Nestor-Baker (2004) examined the tacit knowledge of 16 highly productive scholars in education and reported the following knowledge and strategies attributed to their high productivity: (a) collaboration and social support, (b) coping with competing demands, (c) navigating institutional context, (d) political skills to gain access to resources and power, (e) setting a research agenda, (f) research to practice connections, (g) connecting to your passion/knowing yourself/satisfaction, (h) perseverance in overcoming obstacles/self-efcacy/condence, (i) writing skills/writing process, (j) publishing and coping with peer review, (k) setting goals/maintaining focus, and (l) standards of rigor. The current ndings from contemporary highly productive school psychology scholars support past research on what makes scholars highly productive. 3. Study 2: semi-structured interviews We were interested in connecting with ve of the most productive scholars in school psychology simply to have a conversation and learn in greater depth what makes them so productive. These conversations allowed us to address some of the more subjective and personal issues related to scholarship and productivity which could not be addressed adequately in the short-answer survey. For Study 2, we developed semi-structured interview questions using the general protocol developed by Kiewra and Creswell (2000) who interviewed highly productive educational psychologists. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants The top two scholars across each of the three studies (Davis et al., 2005; Little, 1997; Roberts, Davis, et al., 2006) which yielded the original population of 94 highly productive scholars were identied and invited via email to participate in a semistructured interview. These highly productive scholars had participated in Study 1, and all agreed to participate in Study 2. They were Melissa Bray (University of Connecticut), Frank Gresham (Louisiana State University), Scott Huebner (University of South Carolina), Tom Kratochwill (The University of Wisconsin) and Chris Skinner (The University of Tennessee Knoxville). 3.1.2. Instrumentation The rst and second authors developed a semistructured interview protocol to guide the interviews with the highly productive scholars. The questions included on this protocol were either drawn from prior research or developed from a preliminary review of responses from Study 1 or from research results obtained from concurrent studies (see Albers, Floyd, Fuhrmann, & Martinez, 2011). The rst question adapted from Mayrath (2008) was If you had to explain why you are so productive, what would you say? Additional open-ended questions included those targeting personal characteristics, interpersonal inuences, general time management, strategies to enhance research and writing, and experience with the peer-review process (in particular, review practices and perceptions of reviewer bias). The nal question solicited the highly productive scholars' advice for junior scholars in school psychology.

708

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

3.1.3. Procedure The rst author conducted the interviews by phone between early March and late April 2010. Appointments for interview days and times were made by email. An introduction and purpose for the interview was discussed at the beginning of the interviews. Additionally, permission was sought and granted by all participants to record the conversation digitally and transcribe the interviews. Permission to follow up also was granted by each highly productive scholar at any point when clarication was essential for responses that might not have been clear in the interview. Each interview lasted between approximately 45 and 90 min. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and the transcript was shared with the highly productive scholar for approval. The scholars were given the option to supplement or modify any portion of the transcript. Analyses for Study 2 are based on the nal, approved interview transcripts. General information provided about each of these scholars was obtained from their university websites. 3.2. Results The rst author identied key themes in the transcripts of the highly productive scholars, and these themes, with supporting quotations, are reported. Interview summaries are presented alphabetically for: Melissa Bray, Frank Gresham, Scott Huebner, Tom Kratochwill, and Chris Skinner. 3.2.1. Melissa Bray Dr. Melissa Bray is a Professor at the University of Connecticut. She is an alumna of the University of Connecticut, having earned her PhD at UConn in 1997. Her areas of interest and scholarship include communication disorders such as stuttering and selective mutism, classroom disruptive behavior, selfmodeling, and physical health and wellness, especially asthma. During the interview, Bray credited much of her productivity simply to her motivation and frequent recruitment of impressive doctoral students to work with her on research. When asked what personal characteristics contributed to her productivity, Bray said she is someone who is able to juggle a lot, including six children! Simply put, Bray doesn't stop working; it's constant, she said. She conveyed that her mentor advised her to stay steady and put one foot in front of the other, which she clearly has done. Bray spoke highly of mentorship and collaboration. She reported that she has collaborated with one particular supportive, highly productive mentor throughout her career with whom to this day she has a great professional relationship. Bray credited her mentor for teaching her about professional publication and for help[ing her] learn how to write and how to work with the editors. She believes that scholars in general greatly benet from mentorship and advises young scholars to cultivate an ongoing relationship with a mentor or somebody who will promote you and you're comfortable to learn from [because] there are so many things you need to know. Presently, Bray and her mentor write together every Sunday. Bray believes mentorship is a big part of [productivity]; somebody has to help you. She mentioned that good working relationships also make work more enjoyable: It's much more fun to have somebody instead [of being] alone typing at a computer. She offers this advice: You have to share and not be greedy. We work to help each other If we all just helped each other, [publishing] would be a lot easier. Unlike other highly productive scholars who expressed concerns about the peer-review process, Bray's experience is that it is an adequate process in which she has not experienced negative bias. She has persisted in thinking positively even when her work has been rejected, I never get discouraged by revisions. Never have, really. They never bothered me. If somebody said, no, we'd just say, Well, okay. And send it somewhere else. So, I don't really give up easily. Bray suggests that some scholars may not publish as much as they could not because of a lack of ability, but because publishing is tedious and it is hard to make the time commitment, You can't just say forget it. You've got to have that stick-to-it-ness to stay with it. Bray offered enduring words of wisdom to scholars hoping to increase productivity: You really have to enjoy it or it's not worth it. Whether it's the topic, the person you're working with etc. If it seems like work, it's probably not going to be a good thing. Research something you're passionate about with somebody you enjoy working with who is going to be a good collaborator, remember

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

709

you've got to make sure they're reliable on the other end or it's not going to work and be persistent and spend the time doing it. 3.2.2. Frank Gresham Dr. Frank Gresham is a Professor at Louisiana State University and formerly a Distinguished Professor at the University of California-Riverside. Gresham graduated from the school psychology program at the University of South Carolina-Columbia. Gresham's research interests include the following: social skills assessment and training with children and adolescents, children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders, using a response-to-intervention approach in schools to improve services for children and youth with behavioral challenges, and applied psychological measurement. Of the ve highly productive scholars interviewed in the current study, Gresham was denitive in claiming that his productivity can be attributed to passion. He likes conducting research, and enjoyment motivates him to work: Some people do [research] because I guess they feel like they have to, to meet promotion and tenure requirements, and things of that nature. I get that, there's a contingency there for folks, but I never operated out of that, even though I'm a behavioral kind of guy [I] never had that kind of perspective in terms of why I do what I do as much as I do it. I just enjoy doing it It's just something that I'd be doing anyway. It's almost like it becomes intrinsically motivating, so to speak. Gresham acknowledged that sometimes writing an article or nishing a grant has gotten in the way of personal pursuits, and believes that to be regrettable, but not a lot. When the interviewer commented on a love for one's work making it not as much of a sacrice, Gresham responded, It's one of those multiple choice things [Would I] rather write an article or go to Disneyland? Well, I'd rather write an article, you know! Because passion is so important to Gresham's work, he advises junior scholars to nd topics that interest them enough to make the research process less intimidating. Doing so can require a great deal of thought. He counsels: Pick a topic that you are really interested in, that you really want to know more about, and then it won't be as onerous to do research and work hard and get things done and get things out the door. So you better think long and hard about what area you want to go into or areas you want to go into in terms of research topics. That would be my only advice that you don't want to do well, everyone's doing RTI now, so I guess I'll do RTI. If you're not interested in RTI, then do something else. Just don't jump on boardbut if you are, grab that topic and do something not quite like everyone else is doing. Once scholars have a topic that intensely interests them, Gresham says that they really just need to work hard to know everything there is to know about that area and be the most conversant with that area of anybody on the planet. Doing so will likely require reading extensively across disciplines other than school psychology, but Gresham argues that obtaining this broad range of knowledge on a topic facilitates the generation of unique ideas. Like Bray, who meets with a fellow researcher every Sunday without fail, Gresham keeps a daily routine that allows scheduled, consistent time for work. He does not sleep in; he goes to work, and he writes until about noon. Gresham remarks, And I'm done, pretty much, and it's the same way, everyday, and I've not varied from that schedule for as long as I can remember. He also strives to complete work well ahead of deadlines, observing that while many colleagues nish writing a day before deadlines he can't live like that. This strategy allows him to have time to reread and revise his work. Gresham does not use outlines to organize his writing and simply writes off from the brain to the nger. Like all highly productive scholars, Gresham is very familiar with the peer-review process, which he described as the best thing we've got, but it's not foolproof. He discussed at length ideas for improving this process to make it more useful to researchers and conducive to improving overall research quality. Gresham has received reviews that have not been helpful, and he believes that more formalized training for reviewers on how to best provide feedback would greatly improve the peer review process. One organization he participates in professionally equips reviewers (for grant proposals, in this case) with a

710

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

reviewer's handbook. The handbook has specic criteria detailing how to evaluate each portion of a manuscript and outlines different ways that reviewers can comment on strengths and weaknesses. The handbook serves as a training module for peer reviewers. Gresham proposes that the various school psychology journals could collaborate on formulating a training module for a reviewer handbook which would enhance the quality of published research in school psychology because that's what we all ought to be shooting for. In his parting words of wisdom to new scholars, he advises seeking productive mentors to work with and emulate, which is exactly what he did early in his career: I've got some very productive people that I admire whom I've worked with over the years. And so I've tried at some level to emulate their productivity, and their kind of approach to things, because I feel like if they've been that successful some of that might rub off on me, and that's exactly what I've done. I've kind of targeted some folks that I really admire. I picked those folks out early on in my career and tried to learn from them. 3.2.3. Scott Huebner Dr. Scott Huebner is a Professor and the Director of the School Psychology program at the University of South Carolina. He received his Ph.D. from Indiana University in 1983. His current scholarly interests include child and adolescent personality assessment, children's positive psychological well-being (e.g., life satisfaction and self-concept), school psychologists' stress and well being, and school psychology and health promotion. According to Huebner, he did not go to graduate school to become an academic; he went to graduate school to increase his practitioner skills. However, he worked with productive mentors who taught him how to network and have a balanced lifestyle. These mentors also modeled great behavior in being productive and tying research and training and service together," which he attributes to helping him make the decision to pursue academia. Huebner conveyed that he has greatly beneted from collaborating with others, especially his students: Colleagues and great doctoral students and collaborators at other institutions make for productivity too, so I've been really fortunate to have some really outstanding students over the years that have inspired me to be more productive than I might have been otherwise. Huebner spoke fondly of his rst position as an assistant professor and another mentor who taught him so much, crediting a lot of his beginnings as a scholar to this time period. He recalled a pivotal event in his early career: I saw this workshop or colloquium presentation coming up on happiness. And my rst thought was, I gotta go to this! This sounds kind of trivial to me. But as an assistant professor in a small department, I knew I would be missed if I didn't show up. I showed up and listened to this guy talk about his programmatic research. I was just blown away by him. I had never thought of this stuff and I instantly began to think about at that time what I'd call prevention but I call it now health promotion prevention of depression and anxiety in kids and at the end I raised my hand and asked, Do we know anything about kids?; Have you done any work in this area? And he told me basically, no. And that was the rst conversation among a number we've had over the years where he has been very helpful in expanding my thinking.has just been a real inspiration to me. He is also an outstanding human being who you know just models really good academic collaboration, behavior; he's just a good guy! And he too has a familyand has managed to balance his lifestyle to include children and professional work and a wife. I can't believe his productivity! Huebner's own productivity is fueled by several factors. He shared that scholarship is easier when a scholar is embedded in a context that supports research and asserted that the nature of this context is partly a function of one's institution. He noted that while some of his motivation for work lies in internal factors, it is also impacted by practical concerns for nances necessary to raise a family. Another crucial

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

711

factor explaining his productivity has been his wife. He emphasized feeling fortunate to have lots of support from [his] wife who has provided tons of emotional and practical support throughout [his] career. Being a researcher comes naturally to Huebner. He views the peer-review process as generally positive and sees the feedback as new eyes and minds. [who are offering]. food for thought to improve one's work. It also seems that a love for writing has made research easier for him, as does a desire to advance school psychology. I like to write. I actually like to write! For me, writing a journal article sometimes is like putting the pieces of a puzzle together .I mean I'm on spring break today [day of interview]; I could be out in the yard or working, painting the house or something. I just happen to like to write. Also, I just feel good about trying to contribute to the eld. I like to think that maybe some of the research will pay off someday in terms of helping the eld move forward. That's a dream that may not turn out to be the case because for me at leastI would say I've had a lot of quantity, but probably not a lot of impact on the eld at least some of the work we've done in our lab has maybe a little more impact on the day-to-day activities of the school psychologists, but it's been slow progress. When asked to discuss his strategies for writing new manuscripts, Huebner offered the following words of wisdom: To me a research manuscript is like doing a good parent conference. When I work with students I tell them, Throw away all the tests get rid of all your stuff and write down let's assume you only have 15 minutes if you have an hour that's great, but let's assume you have 15 minutes what are the ve important things you want to have parents hear? You know, what are the ve things you want to say? What are the points you want to make? And to me that's how I think about writing manuscripts start with the end in mind. What is it that I want to say, what is the story I want to tell, then how do I build up to would be the rationale. In closing, Huebner shared his commitment and passion to see the eld move away from a relatively strong problem-centered focus toward a complementary emphasis on strengths and positive resources. He remarked: I don't see that happening much in the day-to-day activities of school psychologymaybe they are, but I don't see it. That's what I look forward to, I guess; that's part of the drive the passion and the belief that you know kids are more than their decits. And that's a longstanding drive in trying to do some research that has some impact.

3.2.4. Tom Kratochwill Dr. Tom Kratochwill, a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and formerly at the University of Arizona, is now Sears-Bascom Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Director of the School Psychology Program. He is also Director of the Educational and Psychological Training Center, an interdisciplinary unit for clinical and applied training, and Co-Director of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health and Education Resource Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kratochwill is also a licensed psychologist. Kratochwill's research interests include the application of parent- and teachermediated prevention and treatment of childhood problems through consultation, training psychologists in consultation and therapy, and assessment and treatment of childhood anxiety and related disorders. He also has a major research focus on single-case intervention research methodology (i.e., design and statistics). Like others have noted, Kratochwill credits much of his productivity and early start as a scholar to tremendous mentors. He considers having good mentors a protective factor for young faculty trying to survive on the tenure track. Indeed, according to Kratochwill if you have great models and they empower you and make you feel self-efcacious, you certainly convey that to others. His own experience with mentors has been exceptionally positive and he credits them with helping him navigate academia, I had tremendous mentors who facilitated my career and took me into a mentor/mentee role and then made

712

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

recommendations about how to do good work and how to survive some of the political and negative social factors that often pervade an academic environment. Kratochwill commented that personal mental health and well-being are fundamental to his scholarly productivity. Indeed, he ranked it as the most important factor underlying his success. Like others, Kratochwill nds scholarly work fullling and enjoyable, and he noted that people who nd scholarship aversive are not likely to continue producing high-quality work long term because such misery is emotionally unhealthy. He also commented on the sheer joy he experiences from his professional work: [Another] issue that is very important and critical is just the positive things that return to me from the work and my scientic contributions. I nd them very fullling; I nd it personally enjoyable to do research and professional writing and collaborating, discussing, and presenting. I think you have to nd a joy in that content and the process to be able to contribute over a long period of time. Kratochwill also offered an especially interesting insight into the role of humor in maintaining healthy productivity: Even in some of the darkest moments that you have there are some humorous elements that can emerge. So putting a positive spin on things with humor that you can use to analyze and get through even some of the most negative things that occur with editorial feedback, negative interactions with people, and so on, is really very useful. And often it's been very validating for me to see that humor at that time was legitimate, especially as you step back from the experience or you've had time to reect on what has occurred over time during those experiences. When asked about his daily work schedule, Kratochwill discussed how he follows a rigorous schedule with time set aside for research and writing. However, he tries to plan some leisure time every workday: I always try to set up my work schedule so that I work for an intense and long period of time, followed by something really positive. That something really positive would be, for example, going outside for a run or walk by the lake, meeting with friends, going out for dinner in the evening, or doing something that is like a rewardsomething that you can look forward to as the day progresses. So, that experience can be very inspirational and motivational in doing research and writing. Kratochwill underscored the importance of structuring the work environment and using good organizational skills for junior scholars as well: Junior scholars must recognize that they should be constantly involved in creating an environment for themselves that allows them to be productive. If you have that [evironment] and you work at it, you're going to be successful over time in creating products, relationships, and scientic contributions that can be sustained I spend a lot of time analyzing things that need to be done to advance my work and the work environment; and I do a lot of problem solving to think through work agendas. Like other highly productive scholars, Kratochwill was vocal concerning his critique of the peerreview system. He commented, I'm not real happy with the scientic review process because I think it actually has worked against the development of good science in many cases. In particular I think it represents an institutional culture of the way we treat research and that institutional culture can bias the kinds of scientic works we see in the literature. In closing, Kratochwill offered some nal words of wisdom to new scholars and current scholars who want to increase their productivity: Try, try again! And I think you have to stay in the game in the face of a lot of potential barriers and limitations in the publication process. I think you just continue to try to get your work out there. So, perseverance is still one of those major things to do to be successful. I think a second thing is to access

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

713

colleagues as a sounding board as these individuals can provide commentary and recommendations on your work. 3.2.5. Chris Skinner Dr. Chris Skinner is currently a Professor at The University of Tennessee at Knoxville and Program Coordinator. Skinner graduated from the school psychology program at Lehigh University in 1989. His areas of research interest include: developing and validating procedures designed to prevent and remedy student problems, Applied Behavior Analysis, single-case design, and academic intervention efcacy. Chris Skinner discussed the role of consultation in enhancing his productivity. While the connection between consultation and research may not seem obvious, he argues that positive working relationships open the door to further research: I'm in the schools always and we're trying to address presenting problems. And this has allowed me to work with students and this is the real valuable thing being able to work with my students and professional educators, teachers to address problems that they have, not problems that I tell them that they have. It's pretty important I nd it hard to get in some schools when too many university people have already been there because they are always coming in and telling the educators what problems they have and what to x. And with this consultation model THEY tell us what they want and that makes for wonderful working relationships. For Skinner, applied research is just as important to advancing school psychology as theoretical work, and more intervention research always is needed. He staunchly believes that researchers must improve practice and not simply disprove theories. Regarding writing, Skinner offered a form of encouragement to those concerned that their skills are inadequate: Writing is not one of his strengths, and he believes that most scholars in the eld nd writing a challenge. Skinner starts with a bad draft and makes it better; he notes that the very few people he knows who can write a good rst draft take forever to do so. Like others, Skinner reiterated the importance of learning from others. Feedback has improved his writing over time: The editors in the eld have really helped me become a better writer feedback from articles has really helped. However, he commented that not all feedback is helpful. While discussing the topic of peer review, Skinner expressed his dislike of sarcasm from reviewers, which he said is not uncommon. As for what makes a good review, he said: I like clarity. Vague recommendations are horrible. Skinner also commented on the need for more trained and knowledgeable peer reviewers, and he believes the process would benet from a general training protocol for reviewers. Like many other highly productive scholars, Skinner spoke fondly of mentors who have helped shape who he is as an academic today. He recalled one of the most inuential pieces of advice that has inuenced his own teaching and mentoring of other future scholars: My mentor at my rst job said to me: "We know you know how to do research. Now you have to show us you know how to train students to do research." The day she told me that I started really concentrating on getting my students published and not me. When asked what sacrices his career has demanded from him, Skinner, like Gresham, discussed how work rarely seemed like a sacrice because he enjoys research: If doing it is a preferred behavior, then you're not sacricing, you're choosing to engage in a preferred behavior. The main sacrice Skinner could identify was money; "professional activities such as private practice and conducting workshops are more lucrative than focusing on research." He advises new scholars who want to be more productive to keep [their] activities [other than pursuing research] down, but particularly the things that pay a lot and require much time," which he acknowledges can be a sacrice. At the close of the interview, Skinner offered the following advice to aspiring scholars: Research is behavior. Do it. You just have to do it. People discuss science and research way too much. They just need to get to the doing. it doesn't matter who they are or what their pedigree is Anyone could do it, you just have to get involved and start doing it. I think there's a perception

714

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

that there is this group of people who a) are so skilled, or b) are so smart, or c) control everything, who make it impossible for others to be successful researchers. And that's not true; none of that is true. You just have to decide to engage in these behaviors. And there might not be a lot of reinforcement, but there are very few barriers to doing research. 4. General discussion In this article, we presented results of two studies, supported by emailed short-answer questions and semi-structured interviews, studying the characteristics of highly productive scholars. In this section we present a list of nine recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity, for new and seasoned school psychology scholars alike, based on advice gathered in the two studies presented here from the most productive academic school psychologists. We hope that these recommendations will be interpreted as sage advice from the most highly productive scholars in the eld and that they will function to kindle (or rekindle) others' passion for research and desire to be more prolic in their scholarly contributions to the school psychology literature. 4.1. Recommendations 4.1.1. Recommendation #1: Follow your bliss, be persistent, and work really hard Hurston (1991) described research as formalized curiosity (p. 127). The two studies reported here substantiate this description and replicate the ndings of others (e.g., Kiewra, 2008; Mayrath, 2008): highly productive scholars are curious about their topics of interest. They nd enjoyment in their work, and that joy fuels scholarship. Intrinsic motivations for pursuing research may be more reinforcing than doing so simply for tenure requirements or to gain extrinsic rewards (e.g., prestige and grant funding). Research is incredibly demanding work that is perhaps less daunting when one nds enjoyment in that work. Mayer (2008) even urged scholars exploring possible research questions to, from the very beginning, determine whether or not you are excited by your work if not, perhaps consider other options (p. 21). Although researching questions of genuine interest can facilitate productivity, interest alone does not preclude the need for sheer perseverance. Of the character traits most common among highly productive scholars in our two studies the most prevalent quality involved an ability and willingness simply and persistently to work hard. As we noted earlier, one highly productive scholar commented, You really just need to work hard to know everything there is to know about that area and be the most conversant with that area of anybody on the planet. And that takes a lot of work, and reading, and tracking down, and even reading across disciplines. Indeed, more coded sentiments referred to character traits related to hard work than to passion and curiosity. Nevertheless, working hard on a topic or area of interest certainly comes more easily than doing so in a less interesting area. One highly productive scholar noted that it is less onerous to do research and work hard and get things done when new scholars pick a topic that [they] are really interested in; one that [they] really want to know more about. Based on the highly productive scholars' responses and our experiences, we believe that books describing productivity strategies, such as Torrance (2002), as well as those describing the formative stages of research, such as Cone and Foster (2006), are worth reviewing. 4.1.2. Recommendation #2: Collaborate Davis et al. (2005) theorized that scholarship in school psychology is becoming less competitive and more collaborative. Our ndings support this hypothesis. The highly productive scholars who responded to this survey overwhelmingly agreed that collaboration multipl[ies] productivity by participating with others on projects and manuscripts. Our work presented here replicates the ndings of Mayrath (2008) who reported about the attributions of highly productive educational psychologists. He reported that collaboration was the most frequently expressed attribute or sentiment by the study's participants. It is important to note, however, that an analysis by Haslam and Laham (2009) indicated that the most productive scholars in social psychology should strive for a balance between publishing in teams and publishing alone or in smaller groups, and between taking leader and follower roles on publications (p. 409). Highly productive scholars in the current two studies shared similar advice about assuming varied roles within research projects. One option for young scholars to increase collaboration in school psychology is to attend the biennial School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference (SPRCC) [http://www.education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

715

sssp.sprcc/]. The SPRCC is an innovative 2-day conference that brings together up-and-coming researchers (i.e., early career scholars) in school psychology with experienced and accomplished scholars (i.e., catalyst scholars), with the goal of promoting high quality, multi-site research. Catalyst scholars lead small group discussion sessions in their area of expertise to support and inspire early career scholars' research. The SPRCC has taken place biennially since 2003, on an alternating schedule prior to the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and the American Psychological Association (APA) annual conferences. Some of the benets of the SPRCC are to: (a) collaborate on manuscripts and grant proposals, (b) establish supportive professional relationships, and (c) learn from experiences of established scholars (Jimerson & Albers, 2007). In addition, presenting, attending presentations, and networking at state, regional, national, and international conferences as well as contacting emerging and more established scholars with ideas for collaboration are means to establish collaborative relationships and joint projects. Resources describing methods to facilitate strong collaborations, such as Sawyer (2008) and Thagard (2006), are also worth consideration. 4.1.3. Recommendation #3: Manage your schedule wisely and prioritize research responsibilities Faculty, especially those seeking tenure, have extremely demanding schedules. Halpern (2008) claims that there is no end to faculty work, that institutions are greedy in their demands for faculty time, and that it might be hard to know when to go home at the end of the day because there is always more that needs to be done (p. 59). The balance between teaching and research is particularly difcult to negotiate. It is notable that time spent on research correlates positively with scholarly productivity, but time spent on teaching does not correlate with measures of quality teaching (Marsh & Hattie, 2002). These complexities of the academic workplace make exceptional time management skills essential. The highly productive scholars surveyed in the research described here discussed the importance of scheduling time specically for research, and it seems to be a skill that benets highly productive scholars throughout their careers, as one scholar noted: I build an environment and a time management strategy that allows me to make the best use of my time I've scheduled time during the week when I'm able to spend a great deal of effort and activity towards research and writing. So, I've had to create a schedule and an environment that allows me to engage in that professional work. And of course, that environment waxes and wanes over time because you have things that interfere and interrupt it, that come up that might dislodge it; but I think over my career I've had to work hard to sustain an environment that allows me to continue to do research and writing. There are a myriad of ways in which highly productive scholars schedule their time and prioritize activities. Below are two examples; in the rst, the highly productive scholar writes from home, and in the second, the highly productive scholar writes at the ofce. I've created a rather elaborate ofce environment in which I can work and that workday starts very early. It usually starts at 5 or 6 in the morning with coffee and extends for usually 810 hours of uninterrupted time; and I tend to do that as much as I can, including weekends. I think early in my career I was able to do that work pattern one or maybe two days a week. I try to do that now probably as much as three days of week if I can. Sometimes this schedule is a struggle because there are so many interruptions and challenges in guarding your time to do research and writing. If I can if all goes well, I'll be in the ofce and engaged in research activities by 8:00 AM. There's nobody in the ofce early. The students aren't here; other faculty aren't here. And you know; there aren't res to put out early in the morning. Now, after lunch trying to do research is pretty hard. Highly productive scholars also emphasized the need to remain accountable to personal deadlines and commitments to others. They make public deadlines so [as to] have commitment to colleagues [and] students. One highly productive scholar commented that "it doesn't matter if it is a colleague or a student who is writing with me. If I give them a deadline for my portion of the writing project I am more likely to meet the deadline. There are a number of resources that may be helpful to readers in managing their time and prioritizing their responsibilities. Perhaps the most prominent book addressing such goals is The Compleat Academic: A Career

716

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

Guide (2003) by Darley, Zanna, and Roediger. We also have found that Sternberg (2003) offers a wealth of advice and recommendations for meeting these goals. 4.1.4. Recommendation #4: Have a protected time to write and become a student of writing Ralph Waldo Emerson is credited with observing, Every artist was rst an amateur. Learning to write well can be cultivated over time, and the importance of quality writing cannot be overstated. In a discussion of reasons why articles were rejected for publication in the Journal of Applied Psychology, the outgoing editor, John P. Campbell, remarked that in his nine years of editorship his biggest shock was the discovery of how many people cannot describe clearly and directly what they wanted to do, what they did, and what they found out (Campbell, 1982, p. 693). Campbell lamented that clearly written manuscripts are in the minority (p. 693). The highly productive scholars in the current study concur that submitting superbly crafted work of the highest quality is crucial. Involving other talented writers in revisions likely decreases the chance that submitted manuscripts will fail to convey clearly what the authors intended. Perhaps because superior writing is so difcult to produce, many of the most productive scholars in the current study agree that having time set aside to write whether in small or large periods of time increases levels of quality output, and doing so requires exemplary time management. The scholar in our study who advised others to become [students] of writing noted "writing well requires explicit attention to developing this skill." There are many resources we can recommend to those wanting to improve their skills and performance in this area. In terms of writing skill development, we recommend (a) reading books by Sternberg and Sternberg (2010) and McInerney (2002), (b) thorough review of the most recent Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2009), as well as (c) securing references recently published by the American Psychological Association, such as Cooper (2010) and Nicol and Pexman (2010a, 2010b). In terms of writing productivity, we recommend books by Johnson and Mullen (2007), Silva (2007), and Boice (1990). 4.1.5. Recommendation #5: Pursue a systematic line of research that cultivates your expertise Prolic researchers are able to conduct research that systematically builds upon itself. Scholars aspiring to become true experts in their eld are well advised to focus on one or two areas that allow for a planned, progressive research agenda. Conducting research in this cohesive fashion permits sharing of experimental design and data across studies and facilitates simultaneous work on related projects. One highly productive scholar recommends looking at the big picture, of examining honestly what interests a person and exploring where what you are interested in ts into the scheme of professional work in school psychology. New scholars really need to think about where [do their ideas] go, where [they] match, what [they] map on to in terms of future work and what the implications are for the eld. Further, scholars are advised to think critically about how their program of research is likely to be perceived, how important it is, [and whether] it will impact future research [and] future practice and think about that in a very deliberate way; get feedback from others about it. One highly productive scholar provides additional helpful suggestions: I think [scholars] need to look at the big picture and set up an agenda for acquiring the skills if they don't have it, working with someone who does, or making sure that they can continue to stay abreast of those contributions and new technologies as they advance their research agenda [Many] people don't think about that as much and yet it is a critical thing in continuing to move forward with research and professional writing and a scientic career. [Also] look at other elds andother scientic disciplines as potential models for how [ideas] have evolved, developed, and what people are doing and to have this bigger world view of things that are occurring so they can see where their work ts and to do that you need to spend some time talking to people in other disciplines. You know, cruising the web to see what people are up to and looking at some of the innovations that occur in other elds of study can yield productive insights into one's own work. Those are some of the things I think would work to help people in the future in our profession. Again, books by Darley et al. (2006) and Sternberg (2003) are good resources to support this recommendation.

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

717

4.1.6. Recommendation #6: Hone research skills, stay current in the literature, and become a reviewer Understanding how to conduct valid research effectively and efciently requires explicit instruction and extensive practice. Several highly productive scholars remarked that advanced graduate coursework, particularly in statistics and research design, prepared them well for future research. More than half the frequently referenced resources presented in Table 1 were texts devoted to research methodology and data analysis. Although research and statistics courses can provoke anxiety (see Onwuegbuzie & Wilson, 2003), graduate students aspiring to academic careers are well advised to pursue rigorous study in these fundamental areas. Highly productive scholars read relentlessly to remain current in their focused areas of interest. Many of their research projects begin by identifying gaps in the literature and the discussion sections in published articles often provide starting points. Aspiring researchers should critically examine current research to answer questions such as: What remains unanswered?; Would the ndings of a particular study hold true if certain conditions were altered?; and How can results be applied in practice? Researchers must understand what the primary unknowns are in the eld while asking questions that challenge and build upon extant literature. One highly productive scholar challenges new scholars to think about the research and scientic skills that you need to have in terms of work within a particular area and make sure you have the foundation skills to do the work you need to do and a game plan for acquiring those skills and knowledge if you are going to move forward in a certain direction. Aspiring scholars who immerse themselves in the literature will be better prepared to formulate meaningful research questions which signicantly advance the eld. Service as ad-hoc reviewers and on editorial review boards of journals provides scholars with an especially valuable opportunity. Not only does becoming a reviewer or action editor increase practical knowledge of the peer-review process, but also this role allows researchers to stay current in the literaturevia content in the manuscripts reviewed and the comments of other reviewers and action editors in their letters. Furthermore, serving as a reviewer or action editor provides rst-hand insider knowledge of journal operations and increases awareness of the characteristics of manuscripts that reviewers and editors most value (see Albers et al., 2011, for more information). For those serving in these editorial roles, we recommend books by Hames (2007) and Sternberg (2005). 4.1.7. Recommendation #7: Take peer reviews seriously without getting defensive, and address revisions thoroughly The peer-review process is best thought of as a collaborative endeavor. As Hoppin (2002) noted an insightful and articulate review can substantially improve the science and clarity of a submitted paper (p. 1019). In line with this perspective on peer review, many respondents urged others to consider and address explicitly in response letters each and every request for change suggested by reviewers, even if they do not fully agree with the request. Doing so requires a degree of humility and willingness to understand that even highly critical comments might have some level of merit to them. Overly emotional reactions to rejection can lead to discouragement. Kiewra (2008) contended that productive scholars must know how to frame inevitable disappointment in positive ways, and he summarized the wise counsel of psychologist Howard Gardner: Failure is the price of improvement (p. 85). McInerney (2002) includes an informative chapter focusing on responding to reviewers' comments after peer review. Furthermore, consistent with recommendation #6, reviewing for journals often allows for review of others' response letters to reviewers. 4.1.8. Recommendation #8: Familiarize yourself with the journals and select an outlet based on t and intended audience School psychology research is supported by a variety of journals, and the most productive scholars in the eld assure us that knowing which journals are most appropriate for a particular manuscript will enhance the likelihood of acceptance. Every journal has its own mission, objectives, and audience (see article by Floyd et al., 2011, on the overview of school psychology journals). As highly productive scholars in the current study noted, some journals are also more likely than others to publish qualitative research or single-case design research. Writers should not limit themselves to considering only school psychology journals (or even school psychology newsletters) as potential outlets,

718

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

although some highly productive scholars found through experience that not all journals are friendly to school psychology. Henson (2007, 2009) provides an overview of educational journals. 4.1.9. Recommendation #9: Get a mentor and be a mentor The highly productive educational psychologists surveyed by Mayrath (2008) credited collaboration as a primary reason for their productivity and noted that this often takes the form of mentoring; for example, one highly productive scholar stated, Without question, the mentoring that I was so fortunate to have received as a graduate student, along with the repeated modeling of the collaborative research process, were the key ingredients. Our ndings also reect upon the importance of mentoring both receiving and giving to research productivity. Although not all highly productive scholars report having meaningful guidance or mentorship during graduate school, the importance of actively seeking a mentor (even from outside the department or university) is unquestionable. Mentors are enthusiastic partners in the research process, and mentees prot from mentors' experience and guidance. Other published research also suggests that graduate students who are able to build relationships with faculty mentors who provide practical support have higher rates of research productivity (Tenenbaum, Crosby, & Gliner, 2001). These students also benet from psychosocial support proffered by their mentors. Their ndings demonstrate that practical help from a senior person can help the junior person accomplish tangible career successes (p. 338). Our studies provide further evidence for the positive role of mentoring in academia. Several books published during the past decade have focused on the mentoring relationship. For example, Johnson (2006) targets faculty mentoring students and Johnson and Huwe (2003) target graduate students seeking mentoring. Shapiro and Blom-Hoffman's (2004) study of Lehigh University's school psychology program, which has produced a high percentage of graduates obtaining academic positions, provides a detailed and helpful portrait of how mentoring and modeling promote successful academic careers. 4.2. Limitations and realizations The conclusions drawn from our studies should be tempered by limitations both associated with our decisions when designing and implementing them and the nature of the studies themselves. First, our studies were affected by coverage error (Stapleton, 2010). Thus, although we selected potential participants from the three most prominent lists of highly productive scholars appearing in peer-reviewed school psychology journals, we recognize that these highly productive scholars were selected based on consideration of only a narrow selection of journals. As a result, those scholars who publish primarily outside those journals (e.g., in other journals, in newsletters, or in books) were not included in our target population. We realize that these highly productive scholars and many others who devote their time to teaching, training, and service also have valuable contributions to offer the eld, but their perspectives were not included in our studies targeting research productivity. Second, not all highly productive scholars who were invited to participate in Study 1 did so. Some could not be contacted, others actively declined to participate, and despite use of a multi-contact system, others did not respond. Although more than half (56%) of the 91 scholars who received an invitation to participate in Study 1 did so, response error surely impacted our results to an unknown degree (Stapleton, 2010). Third, responses were not anonymous. Both those responding to the emailed survey and those interviewed might have been affected by the lack of anonymity so that they could have engaged in impression management and produced more socially desirable responses (Paulus, 1991). Thus, congruence between their responses and their actual practices might be suspect. Finally, our use of qualitative methods, such as micro-analysis and the constant comparison approach to analyze our data also might have produced errors in our conclusions. We applied our own subjective judgments in categorizing the sentiments in Study 1 and in selecting which quotations to include in the description of the results. We recognize, as Corbin and Strauss (2008) note, that qualitative research ndings are a product of data plus [emphasis in the original] what the researcher brings to the analysis (p. 33). Although we analyzed the data commensurate with best practices in the eld of qualitative research, the reader is the nal judge on the trustworthiness of this and any study (Bondy, Ross, Gallingane, & Hambacher, 2007). 4.3. Future research Future productivity researchers may consider exploring the impact of scholars' research as opposed to simply quantifying the amount of research published. Heesacker and Elliott (2007) noted that perhaps a

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

719

rose is a rose, but a pub is not a pub is not a pub (p. 177). Similarly, the best indicator of the quality of a published article is its impact on subsequent research (Tsang & Frey, 2007). Studies such as those by Price, Floyd, Fagan, and Smithson (2011) are a step in the right direction in understanding publishing impact. Observations or eldwork of the highly productive scholars "in action" also would be helpful. Corbin and Strauss (2008) noted that observations can be time consuming and even intrusive, but they denitely should be considered as part of looking at the whole picture. They stated Observations put researchers right where the action is, in a place where they can see what is going on (p. 30). Additionally, face-to-face interviews (cf. surveys and phone interviews) might provide even richer information. Future research focusing on differences in productivity throughout men's and women's careers as school psychology researchers would be fascinating. In Study 1, 23.5% of the respondents (n = 12) were women, and there was only one woman included in Study 2; likewise, Davis et al.'s (2005) list of the top 20 contributors to school psychology literature included only six women. Joy (2006) reported that males tend to publish more than females during the initial push for tenure, but not thereafter; females, unlike males, tend to increase their publication rates as they mature professionally (p. 346). These data raise questions about differences in work climate. Akin-Little, Bray, Eckert, and Kehle (2004) surveyed female academic school psychologists and reported the positive nding that a majority (60.8%) did not believe that gender differences existed in their academic settings. However, when asked to judge whether particular aspects of the academic climate favored men or women, respondents identied factors, including salary and the amount of respectful interactions, as favoring men. Approximately one-quarter of respondents reported experiencing sexual harassment. Moreover, large differences emerged concerning the amount of perceived stress associated with balancing work and other obligations, including parenting; respondents believed that female faculty were more likely to experience these types of stressors than male faculty. Respondents did not perceive differential treatment regarding research support or responsibilities. Further research might extend these ndings and those of the current study by exploring possible differences between productivity styles among male and female researchers. Finally, many prolic school psychology researchers publish outside the eld (e.g., in journals not considered for the current study), and we did not recognize their valuable contributions when investigating prolicacy by school psychology journal contribution (as opposed to contributions broadly). Future work should consider carefully how widely to cast the net in determining highly productive scholars' orb of inuence.

References
Akin-Little, A., Bray, M. A., Eckert, T. L., & Kehle, T. J. (2004). The perceptions of academic women in school psychology: A national survey. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 327341. Albers, C. A., Floyd, R. G., Fuhrmann, M. J., & Martinez, R. S. (2011). Publication criteria and recommended areas of improvement within school psychology journals as reported by editors, journal board members, and manuscript authors. Journal of School Psychology, 49. Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. Boice, R. (1990). Professors as writers: A self-help guide to productive writing. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. Bondy, E., Ross, D. D., Gallingane, C., & Hambacher, E. (2007). Creating environments of success and resilience. Urban Education, 42, 326348. Campbell, J. (1982). Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 691700. Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations and theses from start to nish: Psychology and related elds. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cooper, H. (2010). Reporting research in psychology: How to meet journal article reporting standards. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darley, J. M., Zanna, M. P., & Roediger, H. L. (Eds.). (2003). The compleat academic: A career guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Davis, K. S., Zanger, D., Gerrard-Morris, A., Roberts, G., & Robinson, D. H. (2005). Productivity and collaboration of authors in school psychology journals, 19912003. The School Psychologist, 59(4), 129133. Floyd, R. G., McCloud, K., Arnett, J. E., Fagan, T. K., Mercer, S. H., & Hingle, C. (2011). An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related elds. Journal of School Psychology, 49. Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York: Little, Brown and Co.. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine. Halpern, D. F. (2008). Nurturing careers in psychology: Combining work and family. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 5764. Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientic journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

720

R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

Haslam, N., & Laham, S. (2009). Early-career scientic achievement and patterns of authorship: The mixed blessings of publication leadership and collaboration. Research Evaluation, 18, 405410. Heesacker, M., & Elliott, T. R. (2007). My dog's better than your dog: Publication counts and quality of clinical psychology PhD training. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, 175178. Henson, K. T. (2007). Writing for publication: Steps to excellence. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 781786. Henson, K. T. (2009). Writing for publication: A shift in perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 776a-776d. Hoppin, F. G. (2002). How I review an original scientic article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 166, 10191023. Hsieh, P., Acee, T., Hsieh, Y. P., Chung, W. H., Thomas, G. D., Kim, H. J., et al. (2004). An alternate look at educational psychologists' productivity from 19912002. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 333343. Hurston, Z. N. (1991). Dust tracks on a road. New York: Harper Perennial (Original work published 1942). Jimerson, S. R., & Albers, C. A. (2007). The School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference: Reections on past, present, and future. The School Psychologist, 61(3), 7680. Johnson, W. B. (2006). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Johnson, W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2003). Getting mentored in graduate school. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Johnson, W. B., & Mullen, C. A. (2007). Write to the top!: How to become a prolic academic. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Joy, S. (2006). What should I be doing, and where are they doing it?: Scholarly productivity of academic psychologists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 346364. Kiewra, K. A. (2008). Advice for developing scholars. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 7986. Kiewra, K. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2000). Conversations with three highly productive educational psychologists: Richard Anderson, Richard Mayer, and Michael Pressley. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 135161. Kranzler, J. H., Grapin, S. L., & Daley, M. L. (2011). Research productivity and scholarly impact of APA-accredited school psychology programs: 20052009. Journal of School Psychology, 49. Little, S. G. (1997). Graduate education of the top contributors to the school psychology literature: 19871995. School Psychology International, 18, 1527. Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher Education, 73, 603641. Mayer, R. E. (2008). Old advice for new researchers. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 1928. Mayrath, M. C. (2008). Attributions of productive authors in educational psychology journals. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 4156. McInerney, D. M. (2002). Publishing your psychology research: A guide to writing for journals in psychology and related elds. London: Sage. Nicol, A. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2010). Displaying your ndings: A practical guide for creating gures, posters, and presentations (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Nicol, A. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2010). Presenting your ndings: A practical guide for creating tables (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Nihalani, P. K., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008). Publishing in educational psychology journals: Comments from editors. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 2939. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Wilson, V. (2003). Statistics anxiety: Nature, etiology, antecedents, effects, and treatmentsA comprehensive review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 195209. Paulus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, L. S. Wrightsman, & F. M. Andrews (Eds.), Measurement of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1759). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Price, K. W., Floyd, R. G., Fagan, T. K., & Smithson, K. (2011). Journal article citation classics in school psychology: Analysis of the most cited articles in ve school psychology journals. Journal of School Psychology, 49. Roberts, G. A., Davis, K. S., Zanger, D., Gerrard-Morris, A., & Robinson, D. H. (2006). Top contributors to the school psychology literature: 19962005. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 737743. Roberts, G. A., Gerrard-Morris, A., Zanger, D., Davis, K. S., & Robinson, D. H. (2006). Trends in female authorships, editorial board memberships, and editorships in school psychology journal from 19912004. The School Psychologist, 60(1), 510. Sawyer, K. (2008). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. Shapiro, E. S., & Blom-Hoffman, J. (2004). Mentoring, modeling, and money: The 3 Ms of producing academics. School Psychology Quarterly, 19, 365381. Silva, P. J. (2007). How to write a lot: A practical guide to productive academic writing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stapleton, L. M. (2010). Survey sampling, administration, and analysis. In G. R. Hancock, & Ralph O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 378411). New York: Routledge. Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Psychology 101 1/2: The unspoken rules for success in academia. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2005). Reviewing scientic works in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2010). The psychologist's companion: A guide to writing scientic papers for students and researchers (5th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tenenbaum, H. R., Crosby, F. J., & Gliner, M. D. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 326341. Thagard, P. (2006). How to collaborate: Procedural knowledge in the cooperative development of science. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44(S1), 177196. Torrance, P. E. (2002). The manifesto: A guide to developing a creative career. Westport, CT: Ablex. Tsang, E. W. K., & Frey, B. S. (2007). The as-is journal review process: Let authors own their ideas. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 128136. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Nestor-Baker, N. (2004). The tacit knowledge of productive scholars in education. Teachers College Record, 106, 14841511. Webster, R. E., Hall, C. W., & Bolen, L. M. (1993). Research productivity in school psychology journals: 19851991. Psychology in the Schools, 30, 136142.