In contrast to the successful previous year, 2020 turned out to be difficult, not only for the earth’s population due to COVID-19 but also for JDDM with an unusually small sixth volume. Looking back at these two very different years back-to-back led us to some reflection: As the COVID-19 pandemic forcefully illustrates, dynamic decision-making (DDM) with all its complications and uncertainty is a topic of high relevance for modern societies. (From the text

Fischer, Andreas

Funke, Joachim

Holt, Daniel

Schoppek, Wolfgang

Wendt, Alexander N.

Wolfgang Schoppek

Andreas Fischer

Joachim Funke

Daniel Holt

Alexander N. Wendt

Directory of Open Access Journals

EditorialSupporting open access publishing in the field ofdynamic decision makingWolfgang Schoppek1, Andreas Fischer2, Joachim Funke3, Daniel V. Holt3, and Alexander Nicolai Wendt41Chair of Psychology, University of Bayreuth, Germany, 2Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training (f-bb), Nuremberg, Germany, 3Departmentof Psychology, Heidelberg University, Germany, and 4Department of Human Sciences, University of Verona, ItalyIn contrast to the successful previous year, 2020 turnedout to be difficult, not only for the earth’s popula-tion due to COVID-19 but also for JDDM with an un-usually small sixth volume. Looking back at these twovery different years back-to-back led us to some reflection:As the COVID-19 pandemic forcefully illustrates, dynamicdecision-making (DDM) with all its complications and un-certainty is a topic of high relevance for modern societies.How can decision science best contribute to enhance theunderstanding of such situations? What is the role of ajournal like JDDM for the research community? And howshould we, as editors, adjust the scope and processes of thejournal to serve the needs of the community? We will firsttake a quick look back at the 2019 and 2020 volumes andthen outline how we intend to develop the journal in yearsto come with a new editor-in-chief, Wolfgang Schoppek.Looking back at volumes 2019 and 2020In the “Seven Questions Project” that was part of the fifthvolume of JDDM (2019) we sent a set of questions to anumber of researchers active in the field of complex prob-lem solving (CPS). The questions covered the relevance of(complex) problem solving as a research area, the contri-bution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real lifeproblems, the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuitionin CPS, and the existence of expertise in CPS. A brief re-view and summary of the answers we have obtained fromeight authors or teams will appear in the current volumeof JDDM.In the sixth volume of JDDM (2020), Romy Müller andLeon Urbas report the results of an experiment the au-thors had devised to explore the applicability of psycholog-ical theories about stability vs. flexibility in decision mak-ing in a simulated modular chemical plant. They foundthat most participants applied a satisficing strategy andshowed sequence effects – but in the opposite direction fromwhat was predicted! The conceptual basis (adapt vs. ex-change) resembles the explore exploit dichotomy that hasbeen studied extensively in decision-making research (e.g.Osman, Glass, & Hola, 2015). This work is a good exampleof how the creative extension of standard paradigms canchallenge and ultimately enhance psychological theories.As the questions for this research originated in practicalproblems, it demonstrates the relevance of studying DDMin settings close to reality.Similarly, Jason Harman, Claudia Gonzalez-Valejjo, andJeffrey B. Vancouver extended the sunk cost paradigm inmaking it dynamic. They created a repeated choice sce-nario where participants learned sunk costs over time. Inthree experiments, they showed that “the sunk cost fallacydepends on the relative a priori importance of the goal be-ing invested in” (Harman et al., 2020, p. 1). Escalationof commitment only occurred when the sunk cost domainwas more important than alternatives. This extension ofthe paradigm on the time dimension can give valuable im-pulses for future research.The contribution of Alexander Nicolai Wendt also aimsat extending the narrow scope of laboratory research. Inhis article, he points to the potential of video materialavailable in the WWW (e.g. Live Streaming), that al-lows “a fairly new access to ecologically valid and unobtru-sive observation of problem-solving and decision-makingprocesses” (Wendt, 2020, p. 1). He reflects on the epis-temological and methodological foundations that need tobe considered when trying to exploit those data sources.One important implication of his considerations is that wewould do well to remember the importance of qualitativemethods for a range of research questions.Organizational changes and constantsThe founding editor in chief of JDDM, Andreas Fischer,has dedicated much time and work to building the jour-nal. After such an intensive phase, we are sympathetic tohis wish for stepping back and facing new challenges. Wethank Andreas for his work and are glad that we still havehim in our editorial team. Wolfgang Schoppek (Univer-sity of Bayreuth), who has joined the journal in 2019, hasnow taken over as editor in chief from Andreas Fischer.Wolfgang is interested in cognitive modeling and has beenworking in the field of complex problem solving for manyyears. Moreover, we welcome Alexander Nicolai Wendt asa new member of our editorial team. Alexander’s workbridges the gap between psychology and philosophy, witha particular emphasis on phenomenological approaches andthe validity of laboratory studies in problem solving anddecision making research (e.g., Wendt, 2020).We take pride in the fact that JDDM has always beenand will continue to be a “Diamond” open access journalrun entirely by volunteers and neither charges fees fromauthors nor from readers. Instead, the “price” that we askfrom authors in JDDM is that they try to produce rigorousscientific work to the best of their ability in line with thescientific standards in their field and the principles of goodscientific practice in general. In this spirit, JDDM has nowofficially adopted an ethics code of conduct based on theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best PracticeGuidelines for Scientific Journal Editors. These guidelines10.11588/jddm.2021.1.82929 JDDM | 2021 | Volume 7 | Article 1 | 1Schoppek et al.: Supporting open access publishingmust be adhered to by all parties involved in the publi-cation process: authors, editors, reviewers and publishers.The guidelines set the frame for ensuring independence,confidentiality, fairness, and participation, as well as scien-tific integrity and transparency at all stages of the publi-cation process. One new element will be the routine checkfor plagiarism, another that all authors must now explic-itly state they have contributed substantially to the paperand approved the final version of the paper for publication.You can find the complete guidelines on our website.Future directions for JDDMThe COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced our convictionthat dynamic decision is a cognitive and social process ofgreat importance to society. It has also illustrated thatdecision-making in the real world does not stop at the indi-vidual psychological level but typically takes place in com-plex social and political contexts. For example, epidemiolo-gists may have a useful mathematical model to simulate thespread of the corona virus SARS-CoV-2 with clear implica-tions for effective behavioral counter measures. However, ifsocietal factors (how acceptable are different counter mea-sures in the population?), economic factors (who may losetheir jobs because of lock-downs?), and political factors(unpopular measures are less likely to be implemented bypoliticians aiming to get re-elected) are not incorporated,a model just of the core decision domain will not lead toeffective decisions.Multi-disciplinarity and multiple methodsSuch deliberations reassure our original intention that“the main focus of JDDM is the multidisciplinary andmulti-methodological study of cognitive processes in dy-namic decision making” (Fischer, Holt, & Funke, 2015, p.1). Reconsidering, we would like to complement that state-ment with “social processes”.Emphasizing multi-disciplinarity and multi-methodol-ogy does not mean that psychological or quantitative workbecomes less important in JDDM. Instead, we want towiden the scope of JDDM, including contributions fromcognitive science, economics, philosophy, political science,psychology, operations research, management studies, so-ciology, and other fields of research (e.g., human factors en-gineering, education). These fields have different method-ological traditions. Hence, it is important to emphasize acritical view in order to maintain the standard of publica-tions. We welcome the strengths of different approaches toquantitative and qualitative research but do not hesitateto critically question their validity and relevance at thesame time. The history of cognitive research on decision-making itself is closely related with various types of mixed-methods research, e.g., the use of think-aloud protocols. Ifinnovative contributions, whether descriptive or inferential,can help advance our field of research, JDDM will supportthem.As striving for multi-disciplinarity entails the risk of be-coming arbitrary, we feel the need to state some overarch-ing principles as orientation for authors, editors, reviewers,and readers. Having in mind that such principles need tobe discussed and developed further, we suggest the follow-ing as a starting point:• We expect submitted work to be committed to prin-cipled argument and a stance of rationality. Differentlevels of description and abstraction, which are char-acteristic for each academic discipline, should be re-cognized as equivalent. We welcome critical positionsas long as they are based on fair argumentation.• Methods should be used to answer research questionsand are not deployed as an end in itself. That holdsfor quantitative and qualitative methods alike. Re-searchers should be careful not to uncritically adhereto particular methods because they are common intheir field of research (Dörner, 1996).• Authors should strive for a good connection betweentheory and data. This appears self-evident, but un-fortunately, it is not. Simply referring to an empiristicresearch tradition is not enough. Similarly, theoreticalcontributions should pursue a high level of conceptualclarity and (where appropriate) identify their relationto empirical approaches.JDDM encourages multi-disciplinary dialogue by dis-cussing the foundational issues of research on decisionsand decision-making. The conceptual basis of investiga-tions is of great importance not only for hypotheses gener-ation but also for the interpretation of empirical findings.Hence, JDDM wishes to encourage a conceptual discoursethat refers to psychological traditions of theory and triesto bring them into dialogue. In this vein, we will soon is-sue a call-for-papers that targets this context and aims torevitalize the theoretical foundations of the field as well asto incentivize innovations.Increasing worldwide contributionsThe COVID-19 pandemic showed that dynamic decision-making is required all over the world. The same observa-tion holds true for the even more complex and threateningproblem of climate change. If DDM is international, shouldDDM research not be the same? While JDDM featurescontributions from a range of different locations, articlesby authors from English- and German-speaking countrieshave clearly been the majority so far. We will thereforework harder on making the contributorship more diversenot only in terms of scientific disciplines covered but alsowith regard to a more complete representation from re-searchers from all over the world. To facilitate this mis-sion, we will continue to charge no article processing feesfor any contributions to JDDM.Summary1) JDDM is a Diamond Open Access journal freeto authors or readers that has clear scientific andethical standards guiding the publication pro-cess and follows a model of “constructive peerreview”.2) JDDM aims to be a multi-disciplinary jour-nal in decision science, with a focus on dynamicand complex real-world problems. This includes,among others, cognitive science, economics, phi-losophy, psychology, sociology, or human factorsengineering. JDDM accepts quantitative andqualitative empirical work as well as theoreticalcontributions with a clear focus on complex dy-namic decision processes.3) JDDM is an international journal and encour-ages contributions by researchers from outsideEurope and the US.10.11588/jddm.2021.1.82929 JDDM | 2021 | Volume 7 | Article 1 | 2Schoppek et al.: Supporting open access publishingDeclaration of conflicting interests: The authors de-clare they have no conflict of interests.Author contributions: The editors of JDDM haveequally contributed to this editorial. Editor-in-chief Wolf-gang Schoppek has taken the responsibility of establish-ing the conceptual outline.Handling editor: Wolfgang SchoppekCopyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Com-mons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 In-ternational License.Citation: Schoppek, W., Fischer, A., Funke, J., Holt,D. V., & Wendt, A. N. (2021). Supporting open ac-cess publishing in the field of dynamic decision mak-ing. Journal of Dynamic Decision Making, 7, 1.https://doi.org/10.11588/10.11588/jddm.2021.1.82929Published: 18.08.2021ReferencesDörner, D. (1996). The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoidingerror in complex situations. New York, NY: Basic Books.Fischer, A., Holt, D., & Funke, J. (2015). Promoting the growingfield of dynamic decision making. Journal of Dynamic DecisionMaking, 1, 1-3. doi: 10.11588/jddm.2015.1.23807Osman, M., Glass, B., & Hola, Z. (2015). Approaches to learningto control dynamic uncertainty. Systems, 3, 211–236. doi:10.3390/systems3040211Wendt, A. N. (2020) The Problem of the Task. Pseudo-Interactivity as an Experimental Paradigm of PhenomenologicalPsychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 855. doi: 10.3389/fp-syg.2020.0085510.11588/jddm.2021.1.82929 JDDM | 2021 | Volume 7 | Article 1 | 3

Supporting open access publishing in the field of dynamic decision making

PhilPapers

https://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jddm/article/download/82929/77307

Supporting open access publishing in the field of dynamic decision making

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals

PhilPapers