CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

journal

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionApr 29, 2023
Entity authorityQ15762531 ↗
Source-derived summary

The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering the study of psychological decision-making processes. It was established in 1988 and is published five times per year by John Wiley & Sons. The editor-in-chief is George Wright (Strathclyde Business School). According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2020 impact factor of 2.438, ranking it 52nd out of 83 journals in the category "Psychology, Applied".

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Journal of Behavioral Decision Making” is journal. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Journal, Behavioral and Decision, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1988, 2020—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Journal, Behavioral and Decision is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “journal” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 29, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q15762531. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1988 and 2020.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Journal of Behavioral Decision Making”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Journal of Behavioral Decision Making primary sources, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making archive and Journal research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Journal of Behavioral Decision Making”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Journal of Behavioral Decision Making” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.