wrote on Sep 4^th, 2002 at 4:49pm:

PDD-Fed, ...With regard to the trade publication, "Polygraph," a publication of the American Polygraph Association, I believe it will never reach the status of an accepted peer-reviewed periodical in the world of psychophysiology (under present circumstances) for two reasons.  I spoke of one yesterday--lack of scientific rigor, but the other is equally important--lack of independence.  As long as "Polygraph" has any connection to the APA, a trade organization for those foisting (ok, admittedly a bit heavy handed characterization, albeit accurate ;) ) a business on the American public, it will never be deemed to have the requisite independence to be considered a reputable scientific journal.  As it now stands, such a representation would be tantamount to R.J. Reynolds tobacco company suggesting its employee newsletter should be considered part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in the world of pulmonary physiology.

I understand and appreciate your points.  However, if I am not mistaken, the APA (polygraph) organization has two publications.  One is indeed a "newsletter" and is named as such.  It carries things like adds for instrument manufacturers, help wanted ads, etc.  The other publication is an actual jounal, which addresses operational and legal issues, research methodology, actual research studies, etc.  It compares at least in its structure and format, to scientific journals such as the AAFS and JAMA journals.

In fact, I would argue that JAMA, the journal of that American Medical Association, is a trade publication, not much unlike the Journal of the APA.  It serves not only as an outlet for medical research, But as a "trade" publication (furthering the position of its members).  In fact, the medical community has long used JAMA as a mouthpiece for defending its position on many commercial and political issues.  How is that unlike the APA Journal?  What am I not understanding here?