As empirically shown by Anvari et al. (Reference Anvari, Alsalti, Oehler, Marion, Hussey, Elson and Arslan2025), construct proliferation is a serious problem in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology—also compared to other psychological disciplines. In fact, I-O psychology seems to be “a fragmented field” (Anvari et al., Reference Anvari, Alsalti, Oehler, Marion, Hussey, Elson and Arslan2025, p. 1 [italics added]). Bowling et al. (Reference Bowling, Sessa, Shaffer and Banks2026) analyze the reasons for this development, and we agree with many parts of their analysis. However, we believe that journals and the academic publishing industry play a key role for the emergence of construct proliferation. Consequently, we consider one of the key recommendations made by Bowling et al.—a moratorium on “new” constructs—to be unrealistic.
In our commentary, we first outline current developments in the academic journal market and discuss how these developments may create incentives for scholars to develop “new” constructs. Second, we illustrate why a moratorium on the introduction of “new” constructs into the field of I-O psychology—as suggested by Bowling et al.—may be unrealistic to implement within the current academic publishing system. Third, we draw conclusions from our analysis and offer actionable recommendations for addressing the issue of construct proliferation in I-O psychology.
How journals and the academic publishing industry may contribute to construct proliferation in I-O psychology
The number of constructs within I-O psychology has doubled since 2013 (Anvari et al., Reference Anvari, Alsalti, Oehler, Marion, Hussey, Elson and Arslan2025). We suggest that recent developments in the academic publishing market and especially the high number of relatively new journals have contributed to this increase by providing opportunities and incentives to introduce “new” constructs. As in any market, new products (here: academic journals) can create or expand demand for related activities (here: publishing manuscripts introducing “new” constructs).
The number of journals in which scholars can publish research on “new” constructs has expanded substantially. It has probably never been easier to establish a new academic journal, largely because digitization and online publishing models have reduced the technical and financial barriers associated with launching and maintaining journals. At the same time, the academic publishing industry is highly profitable (e.g., Springer Nature reported €1.85 billion in revenue and €512 million in adjusted operating profit in 20241; RELX’s Scientific, Technical, and Medical publishing division reported revenues of over £3 billion and more than £1 billion in adjusted operating profit2; Wiley reported revenues of approximately $1.66 billion and about €369 million in adjusted operating profit3). These economic incentives encourage both established and new publishers to expand their journal portfolios and enter additional disciplinary niches.
As a result, scholars in I-O psychology now have access to a larger and more diverse set of journals than ever before, including several journals that specifically focus on the introduction of “new” theories and constructs (e.g., Academy of Management Review, Organizational Psychology Review) or on validating measures for “new” constructs (e.g., European Journal of Psychological Assessment, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Psychological Test Adaption and Development). Many of these journals are highly influential in the field, making them particularly attractive venues for scholars seeking visibility and career advancement. The combination of abundant publication opportunities and the potential rewards of publishing in high-impact journals lowers the risks and enhances the incentives for developing “new” constructs.
The rise of “pay-for-publish” Open Access journals has further expanded publication opportunities. Publishers such as Frontiers Media SA (e.g., Frontiers in Psychology or Frontiers in Organizational Psychology), the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) AG (e.g., International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health), or Springer Nature (e.g., Scientific Reports) have expanded their portfolios in I-O psychology by offering “pay-for-publish” Open Access journals. Peer review and quality assurance are often less stringent in these journals (e.g., Wicherts, Reference Wicherts2016), making it likely that most submitted manuscripts will eventually be published. In this context, journals do not always act as strict quality filters for low-quality research. This reduced gatekeeping again lowers the risk of developing “new” constructs, even if these constructs are underdeveloped or completely redundant.
As outlined by Bowling et al., journal policies and editorial recommendations further reinforce incentives to develop “new” constructs. Manuscripts are often primarily evaluated on the basis of theoretical novelty rather than based on the consolidation or integration of existing constructs or the replicability of findings (see Torka et al., Reference Torka, Mazei, Bosco, Cortina, Götz, Kepes, O’Boyle and Hüffmeier2023). Editorials, calls for papers, and reviewer guidance often tend to emphasize that contributions should advance theory in a distinctive way. Introducing a new construct is one of the most straightforward ways to meet these expectations, because studies on a previously unexamined construct may inherently demonstrate theoretical novelty (or at least may give the impression to do so).
Why a moratorium (probably) will not work
We appreciate Bowling et al.’s strong stand against construct proliferation. However, we believe that, in light of the aforementioned developments in the academic journal market, a moratorium on introducing “new” constructs in I-O psychology is unlikely to succeed.
First, extant I-O psychology journals do not share a consistent understanding of their fundamental purpose. Ideally, journals should serve as a medium for the creation and exchange of scientific knowledge by providing thorough, up-to-date, and unbiased peer review and editorial decision-making. In this role, journals are expected to prevent low-quality research from entering the scientific record, including manuscripts that claim to introduce “new” constructs that in fact offer little or no novelty. In reality, publishers have commercial interests, which conflict with this ideal. For example, “pay-for-publish” journals face strong economic incentives that can make it even more difficult for journal editors to reject a manuscript than to accept it. Moreover, in journals without direct financial pressures, editors may struggle to attract a sufficient number of submissions, leading them to accept contributions that meet only minimal scientific standards. As a result, not all journals are equally motivated or able to filter out manuscripts that introduce constructs of limited novelty (or even without any novelty).
Second, implementing the coordination required for a moratorium across I-O psychology journals would be extremely difficult. It would require (a) agreement across the field on precise, operational criteria as to when manuscripts are subject to such a moratorium. That is, there may be some ambiguity as to whether the key contribution of a manuscript is the introduction of a “new” construct. For instance, manuscripts may present novel insights on several established constructs along with the introduction of a single “new” construct. A moratorium would also require (b) ongoing monitoring to ensure that submitted manuscripts adhere to these criteria. Editorial boards vary widely in methodological expertise, time, and resources, and some may lack the capacity to evaluate whether manuscripts fulfill these criteria. Thus, even if guidelines were issued, interpretation and enforcement would vary. Moreover, (c) many I-O psychology scholars publish in journals outside the field (e.g., management, business, or general psychology journals). This further complicates coordination, because achieving adherence would require cooperation across multiple disciplines with different priorities and editorial standards.
Conclusions and recommendations
So, we disagree with Bowling et al., that a moratorium on new constructs is realistic given the current academic publishing landscape, which is largely driven by publishers’ commercial incentives and scholars’ incentives to publish as much research as possible. However, we agree with the remaining suggestions by Bowling et al. for addressing construct proliferation (e.g., special issues on construct proliferation, publishing replication studies, changes to graduate program curricula). Below, we extend some of these recommendations and also offer additional recommendations.
We agree with the recommendation that I-O psychology journals adopt concrete editorial practices and policies that counter construct proliferation and do not require field-wide coordination. First, journals should encourage studies that summarize and organize “the existing landscape of constructs and measures” (see also Anvari et al., Reference Anvari, Alsalti, Oehler, Marion, Hussey, Elson and Arslan2025, p. 17). To clearly communicate their main goal, we suggest the term “defragmentizing studies” (see the title of Anvari et al., Reference Anvari, Alsalti, Oehler, Marion, Hussey, Elson and Arslan2025) for these studies. To do so, editorial boards could identify topics that are particularly affected by construct proliferation and invite defragmentizing studies on these topics. To offer a clear and results-independent avenue to publication and increase rigor, defragmentizing studies might best be conducted as registered reports (Briker & Gerpott, Reference Briker and Gerpott2024; see also Hüffmeier & Kühner, Reference Hüffmeier and Kühner2024).
We also agree that journal policies should be revised to realign incentives for theoretical contribution. Many journals emphasize that each manuscript must advance theory (see Torka et al., Reference Torka, Mazei, Bosco, Cortina, Götz, Kepes, O’Boyle and Hüffmeier2023), which is often interpreted narrowly as theoretical novelty. Expecting each manuscript to provide theoretical novelty is unrealistic and can incentivize the creation of allegedly “new” constructs. A more balanced approach should not only value theoretical novelty but also theoretical refinement in terms of clarity and parsimony, including efforts to address construct proliferation, and theoretical robustness in terms of the replicability of findings.
As an additional recommendation, we suggest that journals should implement stricter peer-review policies to prevent conflicts of interest in peer review. Scholars who originally introduced a construct may have a personal interest in its continued use and recognition in the literature. As these scholars are typically experts for the construct or construct domain in question, they are likely to be asked to review studies that aim to reduce construct redundancy. Editors should bear in mind, however, that these scholars may be reluctant to endorse the elimination or merging of their constructs. Such bias can result in the continued publication of redundant constructs. Journals should therefore explicitly prohibit reviewers with strong self-interest from evaluating defragmentizing studies, openly communicate these peer-review policies, and ensure that they are enforced.
More generally, we recommend that authors, editors, and reviewers of manuscripts on “new” constructs be receptive of the wealth of studies on construct convergence in and outside of I-O psychology (e.g., Wilhelm et al., Reference Wilhelm, Kaltwasser and Hildebrandt2018) so that they can evaluate new studies against existing standards. Moreover, the issue of jingle-jangle fallacies (Block, Reference Block1995)—meaning that different constructs are labeled with the same term or that the same construct is presented under different terms, respectively—has been frequently discussed and empirically addressed in many studies (e.g., Marsh et al., Reference Marsh, Craven, Hinkley and Debus2003), again providing valuable benchmarks for new studies. Notably, Bowling et al., focus on the jangle fallacy. However, jingle fallacies are likely also prevalent in I-O psychology and, thus, may warrant equal attention—as both fallacies “waste scientific time” (Block, Reference Block1995, p. 210). Finally, several fields in psychology have undergone repeated “defragmentizing” (e.g., on the structure of intelligence; McGrew, Reference McGrew2009). Such developments may serve as examples for domains within I-O psychology that suffer from construct proliferation.
In sum, proactive editorial selection of research topics with pronounced construct proliferation, rigorous research practices in studies on “new” constructs, as well as changes to reviewing practices and journal policies, would provide practical, actionable strategies to address the issue of construct proliferation in I-O psychology.
Open access
