Self- and cross-citations in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior: 1983-1992.

Davis et al. (1994) counted every citation in two big behavior-analytic journals for ten years. They looked at who cited whom inside and between the journals.

The team tallied self-cites and cross-cites in JABA and JEAB from 1983 to 1992. They wanted to see if basic researchers and applied researchers talk to each other on the page.

JABA papers cited themselves 22.6 % of the time. JEAB papers cited themselves even more: 36.1 %.

Only 2.4 % of JABA citations came from JEAB. Only 0.6 % of JEAB citations came from JABA. The two camps barely read each other.

Kyonka et al. (2019) re-audited JEAB 25 years later. They found the same silo: JEAB still favors its own methods and stats. The gap A et al. flagged is alive.

Malone (1999) argued that applied folks should borrow inferential stats from basic work. A et al.’s numbers show why that advice is hard to follow—applied writers rarely open JEAB to find the tools.

McKenna et al. (2019) show the cost: almost no solid studies guide teachers of students with emotional disturbance. The citation wall A et al. found helps explain why evidence is thin.

If you write a treatment study, flip through the latest JEAB before you design it. One graph or stat trick from a basic lab can sharpen your visuals and pass peer review faster. Share that find in your next team meeting and model cross-reading for junior staff.