Co-Editors-in-Chief

Rickard Carlsson ( Linnaeus University, Sweden )
Ulrich Schimmack ( University of Toronto, Mississauga, Canada )

Editorial Board

Åse Innes-Ker ( Lund University, Sweden )
Marcel van Assen ( Tilburg University, and Utrecht University, The Netherlands )
Felix Schönbrodt ( Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany)
Moritz Heene ( Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany)
Henrik Danielsson ( Linköping University, Sweden )
Daniël Lakens ( Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands)
Yana Weinstein ( University of Massachusetts, Lowell, USA )

Advisory board

David Meyer ( University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA )
Eiko Fried ( University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands )
James Coyne ( University of Pennsylvania, USA)
Nick Brown (University of Groningen, The Netherlands)
Stephen Martin ( Baylor University, USA)
Paul Bürkner ( University of Münster, Germany )
Donald Williams ( University of California, Davis, USA)
Julia Rohrer ( University of Leipzig, Germany)
Malte Elson ( Ruhr University Bochum, Germany)
Anne Scheel ( Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany)
Matt Williams ( Massey University, New Zealand)
Cody Christopherson ( Southern Oregon University, USA )
Gary Burns ( Wright State University, USA )
Tim van der Zee ( Leiden University, The Netherlands )
Kristoffer Magnusson (Karolinska Institutet, Sweden)

About the Editorial Board

The editorial board consists of two co-editors-in-chief, as well as seven regular members. These nine members are henceforth referred to as the editorial board. The two co-editors-in-chief are responsible for the day-to-day operative decisions of the journal. If the two co-editors-in-chief cannot agree on an operative day-to-day editorial decision, the remainder of the editorial board will vote on the decision. Strategical decisions (e.g., the aims and scope of the journal) are always decided after discussion within the editorial board, and through majority vote if neccessary. Submissions are typically handled by one of the co-editors-in-chief. However, editorial board members are encouraged to select special areas (e.g., proposals; history of psychology) where they take on most of the work as action editors, and advisory board members may occasionaly step in as action editors.

The editorial board will have their positions automatically renewed yearly, should they accept it, without voting, for a period of five years. If one or more members do not wish to renew their position, then new members will be selected by majority vote of the editorial board. Meta-Psychology values academic freedom and the right to have controversial opinions. The bar set for dismissal of a member of the editorial board should be high. An editorial board member can be fired against their will only by an unanimous vote. For this vote, the remaining members and two randomly selected advisory board members will cast the vote. After the five-year period, the co-editors-in-chief and the editorial board will convene and jointly suggest new editorial board members and co-editors-in-chief, through majority voting. This voting will also involve the five advisory board members who has contributed the most to the journal during the past five years (e.g., editing, reviewed papers). The changes made may range from rotating positions to a completely new editorial board.


About the Advisory Board

Membership on the advisory board is decided on the basis of specific, sometimes narrow, expertise. Advisory board members will be called upon when their expertise is needed, for example with reviewing, helping to find reviewers, or spreading pre-prints through their social networks. Advisory board members may also be asked to step in as action editors occasionally, especially in order to avoid COI (see below).


Transparency in the Editorial Work

To acheive transparency, discussions within the editorial and advisory board should be documented and available on open discussion groups. If necessary, voting in the editorial board may be done anonymously, but the discussion leading up the vote must always be open and transparent. Further, the entire work-flow from submission to editorial decision is documented and always published online regardless of whether a submission is rejected or accepted.

Policy Regarding Conflict of Interest

Meta-psychology is still a small field. The risk of conflict of interest is thus large. Authors might submit papers to editors who may have a history of competing interest with them, editors or editorial board members may wish to submit their own work to the journal, an author may have co-authored papers with one or more of the editorial or advisory board members, and so on. The solution to resolve such COI is full transparency and help from advisory board members. Advisory board members are encouraged to be vigilant in detecting such problems should the editorial board fail to do so, and to be prepared to step in as action editors for certain submissions. Any advisory board member has the right to question the impartiality of an action editor for a specific submission, and the editorial board will then be required to consider replacing the editor for that submission.

For example, suppose that an editorial board member or even a co-editor-in-chief submits a paper. This is a clear COI. It will then fall upon the remaining editorial board members to select an impartial advisory board member to step in as action editor and recruit external arms-length reviewers. Because of this second role of the advisory board, it falls on the editorial board to make sure that the advisory board is regularly updated about the progress of the journal (e.g., submissions), and is comprised of people who are in a position to question conflict of interest among the editorial board members.