Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42427817›Full record

ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2026

Peeling Back the Curtain: A Primer on the General Peer-Review and Publication Process in Behavior Analysis.

Michael P Kranak, Daniel R Mitteer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael P KranakOakland University, Rochester, MI USA.
Daniel R MitteerSchool of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA USA.

Funding

Using Behavioral Economics to Mitigate Relapse of Problem Behavior in an Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities PopulationR21HD113794 · NICHD · OAKLAND UNIVERSITY · PI KRANAK, MICHAEL · 2024 to 2024
$426k
Optimizing Dimensions of Reinforcement to Enhance Behavioral InterventionsR21HD113881 · NICHD · AUBURN UNIVERSITY AT AUBURN · PI FALLIGANT, JOHN · 2024 to 2025
$385k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD113794NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD113881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The peer-review and publication process can often seem opaque, especially to those outside of academia or settings in which research is a frequent occurrence. Those who may not have received training and mentorship on the peer-review and publication process could therefore be seen as being at a disadvantage when attempting to navigate those spaces. That lack of knowledge of the process could readily be seen as a barrier for those in less research-intensive settings, hindering their ability to submit their work for peer review. Accordingly, to alleviate such barriers, we provide a primer on the overall peer-review and publication process encountered in behavior analysis. This includes describing the process as a whole; types of decisions that could be rendered and received, and how to navigate each decision; how to select a journal to which to submit; timelines; and the roles of Associate Editors and reviewers in the process. We also describe several behavior-analytic journals most applicable to practitioners and the conditions under which they would (or would not) elect to submit to that journal. Moreover, and critically, we offer discourse on and clarify many common misconceptions surrounding the peer-review process (e.g., authors pay for publication).

Indexed as

disseminationpeer reviewpublicationsresearch-to-practice

Identifiers

PMID42427817
PMCPMC13348775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.