Skip to main content
SearchLogin or Signup

Call for Papers: Special Collection: Behavioral Addiction to Technology

Published onFeb 08, 2022
Call for Papers: Special Collection: Behavioral Addiction to Technology
·

Special Collection: Behavioral Addiction to Technology

Submit Abstract/Manuscript

Deadlines

Three types of submissions will be accepted for the special collection: (1) registered reports; (2) single- or multi-study reports; (3) theoretical, conceptual, or integrative reviews. Because of the substantial difference between these types of submissions, both the deadlines and what is required at each deadline differ accordingly.

Submission Type #1: Registered Reports:

Initial Submission of Stage 1 Registered Reports: April 15th, 2022

  • Please submit using the Special Collection article type, “Behavioral Addiction to Technology”

Final Submission of Completed Project: Given the considerable variability in possible research designs, authors of registered reports should provide a clear expected timeline in their initial submission. The feasibility of this timeline will be evaluated by the reviewers and action editor who will then give an explicit deadline for final submission if the pre-registered study is approved.  

Submission Types #2 and #3: Single/Multi-Study Reports & Theoretical, Conceptual, or Integrative Reviews:

Initial Submission of Abstract: April 15th, 2022

  • Please submit abstracts [of approximately 250 words] using the “Special Issue Abstract” article type

Final Submission of Completed Manuscript: August 31st, 2022

Publication of the Collection: As Technology, Mind, and Behavior is an online-only journal, final manuscripts that are accepted for publication will be published immediately (i.e., rather than waiting for all manuscripts accepted to be finalized). 

Editors and Editorial Board

Editors

  • Nick Bowman - Associate Professor, College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University

  • Douglas A. Gentile - Professor, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University

  • C. Shawn Green - Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Tracy Markle - Founder & Co-Director, Digital Media Treatment and Education Center

Editorial Board 

  • Tobias Dienlin, University of Vienna

  • Stephanie Diez-Morel, Edinboro University

  • Chris Ferguson, Stetson University

  • Peter Gerhardstein, Binghamton University

  • Daniel Kaufmann, Grand Canyon University

  • Eugene Agboifo Ohu, Lagos Business School

  • Akiko Shibuya, Seijo University

  • Vasileios Stavropoulos, Victoria University

  • An-Pyng Sun, University of Nevada-Las Vegas

Overview

The massive increase in various types of technology-mediated interactions - whether in the form of video game play, internet browsing, social media use, online shopping, or myriad others - has resulted in significant public and scientific interest in the extent to which some of these interactions may be pathological or “addictive” in nature. Indeed, there is a large and growing body of empirical work indicating that at least some individuals show both dysfunction (i.e., disruptions in normal life) and distress (either felt by themselves or those around them) as a consequence of their interactions with various forms of technology.

However, given the relative infancy of scientific study in these domains, a host of areas remain poorly or not at all explored or understood, ranging from basic issues in categorizing experiences (e.g., how to divide the space of human-technology interactions, whether the experience of interest should be categorized differently if it involves technology, rather than is in-person), in measurement and assessment (e.g., scale development, validity, whether symptoms should be weighted by severity, how/whether to draw binary lines of pathological/not pathological), in potential comorbidities (either across forms of technology or with various recognized psychological or medical disorders), in individual difference factors that are potentially protective or that suggest additional risk, in biological/neural underpinnings, and in possible treatments, to name just a few. As such, and consistent with the broad scope of Technology, Mind, and Behavior, work exploring any aspect of technology-mediated interaction and its relationship with “addiction” would be considered appropriate for this special collection.

Critically, as is always true in scientific work that seeks to examine rapidly changing human-technology interactions, the questions and methods should be designed in such a way that they speak to persistent issues related to the human mind and behavior in the given fields of study, rather than only to specific details of the current world. As such, work that has a solitary focus on, for instance, a particular type of software, hardware, website, etc. (that may or may not exist into the future) will not be considered. Instead, work should focus more on the features and/or affordances of the technology and how these impact behavioral outcomes. In essence, authors should make a compelling case that the proposed work, although it will obviously be conducted in the current world with the currently available set of human-technology interactions, both builds upon previous theory and empirical results and has the potential to be built upon in future work.

Types of Submissions

Three types of submissions will be accepted for the special collection: (1) registered reports; (2) single- or multi-study reports; (3) theoretical, conceptual, or integrative reviews. 

Our intention is that at least 50% of the accepted submissions will be registered reports, and thus submissions of that type will be given priority. 

Submission Type Details

(1)   Registered reports (see https://cos.io/rr/ for additional information about registered reports): Authors will submit a proposal to address a key scientific question related to the topic. Such proposals should include: (i) a *brief* introduction that situates the question in the relevant scientific literature and elaborates the theoretical background; (ii) the core hypotheses to-be-tested; (iii) a detailed methodological plan including those related to participant sampling if applicable (with Ns ideally being justified by a power analysis, with a plan for exclusions, etc.); and (iv) a detailed analysis plan, with a particular focus on how the analysis will speak to the hypotheses discussed in part ii (i.e., the patterns of results that would be interpreted as supporting or failing to support the hypotheses). The full proposal should be no more than 2000 words.

The proposal will be rapidly reviewed by members of an Ad-Hoc editorial board who will provide comments on the expected theoretical and empirical contribution (see below) and the soundness of the methodological and analytic plans. The goal is to have these comments returned within 2 weeks of submission. Based upon the reviewer comments, the proposal will then either be accepted in principle (which may include the provision that some or all suggestions by reviewers be implemented) or rejected by the editorial team.

*Note that given the considerable variability in possible research designs, authors of registered reports should provide a clear expected timeline in their initial submission. The feasibility of this timeline will be evaluated by the reviewers and action editor who will then give an explicit deadline for final submission if the pre-registered study is approved.  

If the proposal is accepted, authors will be asked to register their study on the Open Science Framework website and conduct the pre-registered study (for an introduction to preregistration see https://how-to-open.science/plan/preregistration/why or http://psych-transparency-guide.uni-koeln.de/preregistration.html). In accordance with pre-registration practices, data should not be collected until the study is accepted in principle.

If, following acceptance of the pre-registered proposal, a change in protocol is deemed necessary, this should be discussed with the relevant editor to determine if the proposed deviations require a new round of review. Changes made to approved study design without consultation with the editor may result in rejection of a final manuscript.   

After completion of the study, a full manuscript should be submitted that presents and discusses the work. These reports should be between 4,000 and 8,000 words of text (including abstract). This work will be published regardless of outcome. However, note that the full manuscript will undergo peer review to ensure that it meets the journal standards (e.g., with respect to the discussion of the results, etc.). As part of this final manuscript, statistical analyses that go beyond those that were pre-registered are allowable (i.e., follow-up or post-hoc analyses that were suggested by the outcomes that were observed), but these should be clearly labeled as such in the manuscript. Upon final acceptance of the manuscript, data and analysis files should be posted to the Open Science Framework website.

(2)  Single or Multi-Study Reports: For researchers who have already completed data collection and/or data analysis on a topic that would fit the theme of the special collection, finalized reports of quantitative and qualitative research will also be considered. These reports should be between 4,000 and 8,000 words of text (including abstract). The word limit does not include reference pages, tables, and figures.

Note that for this submission type there is an initial abstract-only deadline (see deadlines above). This will allow the editorial team to quickly assess the potential match of the report with the special collection. Reports that pass this initial stage will then be invited for a full submission. An invitation to submit a full manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. 

(3) Theoretical, conceptual, or integrative reviews: Reviews should offer (a) a concise introduction in to the central thesis of the paper, (b) an overview of the theories and logics that are being examined in the paper, and (c) a clear presentation of key predictions or future research questions that would resolve existing controversies or fill important current gaps.  Critically, reviews should not be simple “summaries” of existing data. Instead, papers need to have a clear warrant (i.e., a clear “knowledge claim that is supported by theory, existing data, or both and that would serve to drive the field forward, rather than simply explaining where the field is at the moment).

Note that for this submission type there is an initial abstract-only deadline (see deadlines above). This will allow the editorial team to quickly assess the potential match of the report with the special collection. Reports that pass this initial stage will then be invited for a full submission. An invitation to submit a full manuscript does not guarantee acceptance. 

Instructions for Authors

Authors interested in submitting a paper for this collection can do so via the journal’s website (instructions can be found here: https://tmb.apaopen.org/submit). In your letter to the editor, please make sure to indicate that your submission is for the special collection on “Behavioral Addiction to Technology” to ensure that it is appropriately categorized by the editor.    

Note that if authors are unclear whether their proposal would fit within the scope of the special collection, they are encouraged to email either C. Shawn Green (cshawn.green@wisc.edu) or Nick Bowman (nick.bowman@ttu.edu).

Finally, we note that in order to facilitate rapid reviews for all, which is all the more important given the likely timing constraints of much of the proposed work, we will likely ask that all individuals who have submitted proposals themselves also serve as reviewers on at least one other proposal.

Open Access

Technology, Mind, and Behavior is a Gold Open Access journal whereby articles are made open immediately upon publication, promoting broad access to the content. Publication costs are offset by article processing charges (APCs). The current APC for TMB is $1,200 USD. An article’s corresponding author is responsible for arranging such payment upon acceptance of a manuscript for publication. APCs are most often paid via support from an author’s grants, special funds including from one’s institution or department, contracts such as via the government, or one’s employer when the work was done as part of official governmental or corporate duties. If you are a resident in any European Union country, you will be expected to add Value-Added Tax (VAT) at the rate applicable in the respective country.

Articles are published under a CC-BY-NC-ND (Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives) license, allowing others to download and share them for noncommercial use as long as you are credited as the author.

To protect the integrity of your work, this license does not allow for modifications to be shared; sharing only the article as published is permitted.

APA Open Waiver Policy for Technology, Mind, and Behavior

In cases where an author’s research was not supported by the means outlined above, the author may apply for an APC waiver. Considerations for granting a discounted APC or full waiver will be whether an author is from a country classified by the World Bank as low or lower middle income or evidence that an author has exhausted the typical funding sources outlined in the previous paragraph. Waivers and discounts will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Authors wishing to apply for a waiver should complete the form available on the TMB website and wait up to two weeks for administrative handling. Corresponding authors should apply for the waiver upon submitting the manuscript through the peer review system. Applications are handled separately from the manuscript; the editorial team will not be made aware of any waiver requests or granted waivers. For questions regarding waivers, please contact Cheryl Johnson at cjohnson@apa.org.

Submit Abstract/Manuscript

Comments
0
comment

No comments here

Why not start the discussion?