Reviewers' comments.
A 1973 editorial kicked off fifty years of ever-better reporting guides for behavior analysts.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The 1973 JABA editors printed reviewer comments on a non-experimental paper.
They wanted to show why the paper did not meet the journal’s standards.
The note is short and has no data; it is a teaching tool for authors.
What they found
The reviewers said the paper lacked clear methods and clear proof.
The editors agreed and used the comments to teach what good work looks like.
How this fits with other research
Sasson et al. (2018) later wrote a full checklist for reporting single-case studies.
They turned the 1973 idea into a step-by-step guide you can use today.
Newland (2024) keeps the same spirit by fixing how we show risk ratios.
Each new paper adds sharper tools, but the goal is still the same: clear, honest reports.
Why it matters
When you write up a case or ask staff to write, use these later guides.
Start with the Sasson et al. (2018) scaffold: state the design, show the data, and spell out how you judged change.
Your report will pass peer review and help future meta-analyses.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Download the J et al. (2018) checklist and keep it open when you draft your next single-case report.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The large number of nonexperimental manuscripts submitted to JABA and the lack of well-defined criteria for evaluating them, has necessitated formulation of a separate editorial policy (see policy statement on page 404 of this issue). The manuscript by Alan E. Kazdin was submitted before the policy concerning nonexperimental manuscripts went into effect and was reviewed by three established researchers who have made substantial methodological contributions to the field (Montrose M. Wolf, Murray Sidman, and L. Keith Miller were Reviewers A, B, and C, respectively). On the basis of the reviewers' comments, it was decided to publish the manuscript with only minor changes. However, because of the fundamental importance of many of the issues discussed in Kazdin's paper and because of the lack of clear agreement on some of these issues, as exemplified in the reviewers' comments, these comments are presented below.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1973 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1973.6-532