The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 50th anniversary special article series editorial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(JEP:HPP). JEP:HPP started as a standalone journal in January 1975 under the editorship of Michael Posner. The semicentennial birthday is a special occasion and warrants a special recognition. To celebrate, the editorial team curated a series of articles that explored the impact, the reach, and the value of research published in JEP: HPP. The articles were published throughout 2025. While scientific journals are often evaluated through metrics like impact factor, our celebratory articles show that the influence of JEP:HPP extends far beyond such simple measures. The 27 articles that made up the celebratory series demonstrated the vast reach and diverse influence of research published in JEP:HPP, crossing millennia from Plato to modern feminism to address questions ranging from perception of beauty (Grzywacz, 2025), music (Prpic, 2025; Sears, 2025), human reasoning (Fischhoff, 2025), and language acquisition (Nazzi, 2025) to attention (Olivers et al., 2025; Sauter, 2025; Zhang et al., 2025), representation of space (Yamamoto & Phillbeck, 2025), mental imagery (Martarelli & Mast, 2025), working memory (Olivers et al., 2025), cognitive (Logan, 2025), and attentional control (Montakhaby Nodeh, 2025), as well as social perception and action (Ferier & Heurley, 2025; Hafri & Papeo, 2025; Oswald, 2025). The anniversary series of articles included seven invited literature reviews, three editorial perspectives, and 17 readers' perspectives. Each contribution gave a window into a finding, a researcher, and a time. We got a peek into research from 50 years ago-the ways in which "subjects" were tested, data were plotted, and graphs were physically printed. The authors shared the story of data, how they came about, and how they continued to "live" in the literature. This capture of time, from 1975 to today, was one of the motivating factors in planning the celebratory series. The idea was to honor not only the journal but also people connected to the journal over those 50 years- those who led the journal, those who published in the journal, and, of course, those who read the journal. Thus, as the series celebrated the contributions of research published in JEP:HPP, it also celebrated the community of researchers making JEP:HPP, the diversity of our research questions, opinions, methods, and data, as well as the unity with which we converge in our keen interest in understanding the human mind. The editorial team received enthusiastic contributions from both established and up-and-coming junior scientists who are just embarking on a career journey similar to that taken by their predecessors. And while the two groups may differ in their training and methodological affinities, they appear to share the same passion and fire for scientific discovery (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.037 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".