{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02007168458781362, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.260089686098655, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Concluding Commentary: Clinical Decision Making

How fortunate we, researchers of clinical reasoning processes, can count ourselves with this work by Marsh, De Los Reyes, and Lilienfeld of bringing together these six articles and writing a thoughtful introduction. Articles on clinical decision making are often difficult to find, since they appear in many different journals—from the more cognitive-psychological journals, such as the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General and Memory & Cognition, to the more clinical journals, such as Professional Psychology: Research and Practice and the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. When we try to publish our own work, we find that editors and reviewers of cognitive journals often respond that our work is not basic enough, that the issues we address are too applied, too clinical. Editors and reviewers of applied, clinical journals, on the other hand, think that studies into clinical decision making are not practically relevant enough but are too experimental and basic. This makes it very difficult to get our studies published in journals that will be read by the people we do our research for: clinicians who wish to base their practice on solid empirical work. Clinical Psychological Science is very promising in this respect; we hope that both researchers and practicing clinicians will write for this journal and read it.