In India, many colleges and smaller universities still lack a functioning Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC)/Institutional Review Board (IRB), so obtaining formal approval can be harder and slower or even impossible for many researchers. This paints a bleak picture as most reputed journals need IEC approval when studies are done with humans. Reading through journals’ Submission Guidelines page will often show: “All studies involving human participants or human data must state that the relevant Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board approved the study, or waived the requirement for approval, providing the… approval number”. Given this, it becomes relevant to revisit alternative research designs (that don’t involve collecting human data directly).
Reviews (Systematic, Scoping, Narrative and many more types)
One of the better-known families of research designs is review articles, like systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, rapid reviews, and umbrella reviews. They tend to have strong publication value; reviews are cited three times more frequently compared to regular papers! This is because review papers synthesize existing findings into one accessible source, making them especially useful for researchers who want a quick overview of a topic. Systematic reviews in particular synthesize all available evidence on a focused question, making them a highly credible and efficient source for researchers and clinicians. On the flip side, these usually take a lot of time (at least 9-18 months depending on how familiar you are with the methodology and how narrow the study’s scope is) and often need more than one researcher to do properly. Solo systematic reviews are possible but methodologically risky and often discouraged by high-quality journals.
A systematic review focuses on a specific question and uses existing papers to answer it, as exemplified by Kauer et al.’s research (2014) [Top image]. A scoping review maps the breadth of evidence on a topic, helping identify key concepts, gaps, and how the literature is organized (shown by Kops et al. 2025) [Bottom image].
Using Secondary Data
Secondary data is another practical option in psychological research when fresh data collection is not possible. You can use existing datasets, archival records, or previously collected survey data (e.g., India’s census records). Instead of recruiting new participants, you can reanalyze available data to test new hypotheses, examine trends over time, compare groups, or explore questions that were not part of the original study. This makes secondary data especially valuable for working with large or hard-to-reach populations, while also saving time, cost, and the need for direct participant contact. For psychology, some of the most useful secondary data can emerge from survey datasets, census data, hospital or clinical records, school or university records, and reports from NGOs, WHO, UN, or government agencies. These are all helpful in identifying behavioral trends and social patterns.
Using Data Available in the Public Domain
With publicly available data such as Instagram comments, Facebook comments, and public posts, researchers can use methods like content analysis, discourse analysis, thematic analysis, and narrative analysis to study patterns of meaning, language use, identity, and social interaction. Content analysis is especially useful for identifying and coding recurring themes or categories, while discourse analysis helps examine how language constructs social meanings, power relations, and attitudes. In the online space, these methods can be used to study group think, cyberbullying, echo chamber, identity performance, how fake news spreads, how sexist or racist remarks appear and circulate online, and how theories such as dehumanization and moral disengagement show up in everyday digital language and interaction. Content analysis and discourse analysis of newspaper articles can be used to study media portrayals of mental illness, gender, race, crime, stigma, prejudice, and the ways newspapers construct social identities and moral judgments. However, when dealing with sensitive topics (think ‘suicidal ideation’ or ‘mental health discussions’), some journals might still require you to get ethical approval.
Publicly available data used in social media research: Ngai et al. (2022) conducted a content analysis using 140 Facebook posts [Top image]; Newman et al. (2023) applied abductive thematic analysis on 85 print and broadcast media articles [Bottom image]
Focusing on Theories and Concepts
This category of research designs does not use new empirical data, focusing instead on ideas, theories and concepts, and previously published research. These designs are used to clarify definitions, compare existing theories, build new conceptual frameworks, or develop arguments based on prior literature rather than collecting fresh empirical evidence. In psychology, this kind of work is useful for making sense of complex constructs such as identity, motivation, stigma, or behavior, especially when the goal is to refine thinking rather than test variables directly. These include conceptual papers, theoretical papers, conceptual analysis, theoretical analysis, and integrative or narrative theory reviews. Researchers with extensive knowledge in a particular area can use these designs for breaking down and clarifying a concept itself, for building an argument, or for proposing a framework. For example, a conceptual analysis might define stigma, separating it from prejudice or discrimination. The down side is that you need to have nearly expert-level knowledge in the area or theory that you want to focus on. So, it should be an area that you are aware of, you know the latest developments, and have even worked on before.
Hogg et al. (2009) described the uncertainty-identity theory and showed
both how this can explain the powerful draw of religion for some people [Top Image]. Chaikovska et al. (2020) used theoretical, empirical, and statistical findings to look at prosocial behaviour in teenagers and adolescents [Bottom image].
Answering Your Research Question!
How can I find good Scopus-listed journals?
The best way to find a good Scopus-listed journal is, of course, through Scopus’ Sources search feature. You can put in ‘Psychology’ and get a list of all listed journals in the field- over 1,770 results! To find good journals, simply look at specific metrics like CiteScore (average number of citations received by recent articles published in an academic journal) or percentile (how the journal performs compared to other journals in the area). You can also search broad key terms in the search area. For example, I can search ‘game’ (for which I get 29 results) or ‘gaming’ (which gives me 3 results)- so it’s important to experiment around with the term you use.
For whichever journal you otherwise find, such as by using Sage Journal Recommender or Taylor & Francis Journal Suggester, make sure to search the name/ISSN in Scopus’ Sources search feature. However, remember, along-side with being Scopus-indexed and having a decent Impact Factor, what makes a journal good is also how well it fits with your work, has double-blind peer-review, and if it offers a hybrid publishing model.
Still unsure which journal to choose? Psyched for Research has a Journal Selection Toolkit designed to help you make that decision. Refer Psyched for Research to just one more person and we’ll send the complete toolkit directly to your inbox. You’ll find your unique referral link at the bottom of this newsletter.
Scopus allows you to search journals by Subject area, Title, Publisher, and ISSN
When looking at a journal in Scopus, be sure to:
Focus on if the journal is still currently being covered by Scopus or if it was only previously covered.
The CiteScore- it is calculated using citations per document published over a 4-year time period and shows how impactful the journal is (similar to Impact Factor).
Visit the journal’s home page to cross-check if their aims/scope actually align with your manuscript’s topic.
10x the context. Half the time.
Speak your prompts into ChatGPT or Claude and get detailed, paste-ready input that actually gives you useful output. Wispr Flow captures what you'd cut when typing. Free on Mac, Windows, and iPhone.