On the Complexity of Correlating a Graduate Program's Experiences with the Success of its Graduates: a Response to Dixon et al. (2015).

Austin et al. (2015) wrote a reply to Dixon et al. They said counting faculty papers is a weak way to rank ABA grad programs.

The authors asked for broader yardsticks. They want metrics that track how well students learn and later serve clients.

The paper found no new data. It found a flaw: using only publication totals hides program strengths like good mentoring or strong fieldwork.

In short, faculty with few papers can still train great BCBAs.

Detrich (2015) published the same critique months later. Both papers reject the "more papers equals better program" rule.

Pitchford et al. (2019) widened the argument. They warn against any single metric in cross-field talks, not just grad school ranks.

Mammarella et al. (2022) give a concrete example. Their survey shows prior ID coursework boosts student confidence, proving that real training experiences matter more than faculty CV lines.

If you sit on a hiring or program review board, look past publication counts. Ask for data on student pass rates, supervisor ratings, and client outcomes. Push your own program to track these learner-centered metrics and share them publicly.