Promoting Reciprocal Relations across Subfields of Behavior Analysis via Collaborations
Track who you cite and who you write with—simple metrics can break academic silos in behavior analysis.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Elcoro et al. (2023) wrote a how-to paper, not an experiment.
They mapped who-cites-whom and who-writes-with-whom inside behavior analysis.
The goal: show teams how to track and grow cross-subfield teamwork.
What they found
The field still works in silos. Basic, applied, and cultural areas rarely co-author or cite each other.
The authors give a five-level scale and free tools so journals and universities can score and reward true mixing.
How this fits with other research
Kirby et al. (2022) adds the cultural piece. They say collaboration only lasts when teams practice cultural humility—ask, listen, and adjust. Elcoro’s metrics fit perfectly: count mixed papers and check if they include local voices.
Cihon et al. (2018) showed one real team that stayed together across countries. Their story gives life to Elcoro’s numbers—use the metrics early, then follow Cihon’s steps for shared goals and regular check-ins.
Malott (2004) and Saunders et al. (2005) sounded the alarm decades ago: go global, go big, or stay stuck. Elcoro updates those calls with modern citation data and a ready-made dashboard.
Why it matters
You can run the numbers yourself. Pull your university’s co-authorship list, drop it into the free template, and see which subfields are missing. Then set a one-year goal—add one outside-area co-author or cite one basic-journal article in your next applied study. The paper gives the script; you just have to hit run.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open the last paper you sent for publication and count how many references come from outside your subfield—if it’s under 20 %, add two new ones before you submit.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Several barriers may inhibit the growth of behavior analysis as a more integrated and collaborative field. Two such barriers are siloed environments that reinforce a basic-applied distinction, and a lack of translational research pathways. We describe the perils of silos, and elaborate on potential solutions to increase reciprocal relations among subfields in behavior analysis. We promote a five-tiered system to classify research in behavior analysis, and discuss literature on cultivating effective intra and cross-disciplinary collaborations, including using the framework of metacontingencies to understand collaborations. We also propose quantitative and qualitative measures to examine whether the potential solutions increase intra and interdisciplinary interactions. These measures include bibliometric (e.g., citations across fields), sociometric (e.g., social network analysis), and narrative analysis. We apply some of these measures to publications from 2011–2022 from the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior and Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, and argue that behavior analysis overall may benefit from a more collaborative approach. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40614-023-00386-x.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2023 · doi:10.1007/s40614-023-00386-x