See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232545409

Identifying Gifted and Talented Students: Recurring Issues and

Promising Solutions.

Article  in  Journal of Applied School Psychology · January 2002

DOI: 10.1300/J008v19n01_03

CITATIONS READS

88 7,794

1 author:

Steven I. Pfeiffer
Florida State University
133 PUBLICATIONS   3,116 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Families and Residential Placement View project

Revista de Educación 368 Monograph View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steven I. Pfeiffer on 31 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

428192
nal of Psychoeducational Assessment
JPAXXX10.1177/0734282911428192PfeifferJour

Articles
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Current Perspectives on the 30(1) 3­–9

© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Identification and Assessment sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282911428192

of Gifted Students http://jpa.sagepub.com

Steven I. Pfeiffer1

Abstract
Contemporary thinking challenges the view that giftedness and high IQ are synonymous.
Contemporary thinking also challenges the view that being gifted is something real. A number
of authorities in the gifted field advocate a paradigm shift; moving away from emphasizing
categorical definitions of giftedness and adopting a talent development perspective. This shift
to a developmental perspective advocates that we consider giftedness as the unfolding and
transforming of uncanny potential among young children into actual outstanding performance
and accomplishments in adulthood. The early identification and ongoing assessment of indi-
viduals of uncommon ability takes on a more complex, nuanced, and rich perspective when
viewed from a developmental model.

Keywords
gifted identification, gifted and talented, high-ability students

For more than 100 years, gifted students have been identified by scores obtained on IQ tests
(Nisbett, 2009; Pfeiffer, 2002). In a recently completed national survey (McClain & Pfeiffer,
2012), investigators found that the majority of states still rely primarily, in some instances almost
exclusively, on an IQ test score to define and determine whether a student is gifted. Many states
still set a specific cut-score, such as an IQ at the 90th or 95th percentile.
Contemporary thinking challenges this provincial and, many would argue, outmoded approach
to gifted identification. In the opinion of many gifted authorities it is too simplistic and based on
the myth that “being gifted” is actually something real and permanent, that a student is either
gifted or not gifted. The reality is that giftedness is a socially constructed concept. The concepts
of normal, subnormal, and supernormal (or gifted) are human inventions, not a fact of nature.
Although we may view giftedness as something real, something that certain students either have
or do not have, it is nothing more than a social construction. It is an invented way of categorizing
children (Borland, 2005, 2009; Pfeiffer, 2002; 2011). It is analogous to the flawed premise that
some youth are gifted athletes or gifted musicians and all others are not, and that the distinction
between the two, between gifted and not-gifted athletes or musicians, reflects something real and
permanent.

1
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL USA

Corresponding Author:
Steven I. Pfeiffer, PhD, 3206-H Stone Building, College of Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
Email: spfeiffer@fsu.edu
4 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

Historically, societies have used the concept of giftedness as a label to explain and recognize
those individuals who perform exceptionally well in one or more domains valued within their
respective culture. What constitutes giftedness, of course, varies by society. A person viewed as
gifted in one society, for example a highly successful Wall Street banker, consummate telemar-
keter, or creative computer software designer, might not be considered gifted in other cultures
(Pfeiffer, 2012).
There is no scientific basis or justification for dichotomizing individuals into two distinct,
mutually exclusive groups, gifted and the nongifted.

We glibly talk about identifying the gifted; about so-and-so being truly gifted; about the
mildly, moderately, and even severely (gifted) . . . we treat giftedness as a thing, a reality,
something (students) either have or do not have . . . giftedness in the schools is something
we confer, not something we discover. (Borland, 2005, pp. 7-8)

A related fiction is that giftedness is the same as high IQ. This fiction contends that “being
gifted” means that you have a high IQ. Very few experts in the gifted field presently embrace this
view of giftedness as high IQ (Borland, 2009; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko, 2011), but the
lay public and many educators and psychologists still hold to this belief that high IQ equals
giftedness.
Some argue that the fiction that giftedness equals high IQ is one of the reasons for the severe
underrepresentation of lower socioeconomic status children and children from racial, ethnic, and
linguistic minorities in gifted programs (Borland, 2009). Although this author doesn’t agree with
the position that the IQ is without value in conceptualizing giftedness—especially when we con-
sider the young gifted child, critics of IQ testing raise a valid cautionary note on the dangers and
potential misuse of the IQ in identifying gifted students.

The quantitative nature of IQs seems to beguile certain people into taking them far too
seriously. It is not uncommon for educators to establish inflexible IQ cutoff scores for
admission to gifted programs. This can result in absurdities such as admitting (and thus
labeling as “gifted”) a student with a score of, say, 130 on an IQ test and not admitting
(and thus labeling as “not gifted”) a student with a score of 129. (Borland, 2009, p. 237)

“Once gifted, always gifted,” is related to the fiction that giftedness is something real and the
same as high IQ. Many still believe that giftedness is something essential and a permanent aspect
of the person throughout his or her life. This belief is why students identified with a high IQ score
and classified as gifted in the early grades, as young as preschool or kindergarten, are typically
not required to demonstrate subsequent evidence in the later grades that they are still gifted. There
is no other educational classification (e.g., LD; ADHD; SED) or special privilege (selection to a
school athletic team; debate club; orchestra; the student newspaper) bestowed on a student, which
carries such advantage and benefits. There are federal and state statutes that require students clas-
sified with a special education exceptionality to be reevaluated (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004); however, this is not the case with the gifted classifi-
cation (Stephens, 2008). Many educators still believe that there is little need to reevaluate the
student who is deemed gifted when young if a person is always gifted. And there is little reason
to screen for “missed” students who are not identified in the earlier grades as gifted since you are
either gifted or not gifted at birth (Lohman & Korb, 2006).
The great preponderance of scientific evidence, however, indicates that giftedness is not a
state of being; it is not fixed or undeviating (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Ceci & Williams,
1997; Neisser, 1996). IQ accounts for a substantial but not nearly a majority of the reliable
Pfeiffer 5

variance in a student’s academic performance or real-world success (Nisbett, 2009; Worrell,

2009). Giftedness is at best a potentially useful descriptor for categorizing a group of students
who display exceptional ability or uncommon promise in the classroom at one point in time
(Keating, 2009).
The reality is that giftedness is not something real. There is no difference between an IQ
score of 128 and 130. Of course, if we were to compare two students whose IQ differences are
substantial, say between 105 and 130 or between 115 and 146, we appreciate real differences in
their cognitive abilities and capacity to learn—as we would expect. But this doesn’t imply that
there exists a group of children who are gifted at birth, demarcated from nongifted children by
some specific IQ score.
This then leads to the thorny issue of what exactly is “gifted”? Is giftedness an immutable
attribute of the person? Or is giftedness a label for the relative standing of a person in some
culturally valued domain? Can a young child be identified as gifted in kindergarten but not be
gifted in the later years? There is considerable evidence that IQ scores can change, and in some
instances change dramatically (Lohman & Korb, 2006; Nesbitt, 2009). And there is consider-
able evidence that high IQ is only one predictor of academic success and success in life
(Sternberg, 2004). A high IQ in the early years is a good predictor of later accomplishments in
the classroom. But there are other reliable predictors of later accomplishments among eminent
adults (Subotnik, 2009).
Most would agree that the child who is reading at age 3, playing competitive chess at age 6, or
performing violin with a college orchestra at age 11 is gifted. These examples reflect children who
are developmentally advanced, a hallmark of giftedness (Pfeiffer, 2009). Most gifted authorities
agree that academically gifted students are those in the upper 3% to 5% compared with their same-
age peers in general intellectual ability, distinguished academic competence in one or more domains,
and creativity (Pfeiffer, 2003, 2009). Not surprisingly, there is evidence for a genetic influence in the
expression of giftedness (Plomin & Spinath, 2004). For example, the fields of music and mathemat-
ics are particularly rich with examples of child prodigies. Evidence also comes from the emergence
of eminence among children from impoverished environments (Nisbett, 2009). However, most
behavioral geneticists also agree that the unfolding of giftedness requires a nurturing and supportive
environment. This view is consistent with recent pleas to reconceptualize giftedness and gifted edu-
cation within a talent development model (Keating, 2009; Subotnik, 2003, 2009). A number of gifted
authorities now advocate for a developmental model which views giftedness as transforming high
intellectual ability and potential talent in specific culturally valued domains into outstanding perfor-
mance and innovation in adulthood (Feldhusen, 2005; Foley Nicpon & Pfeiffer, 2011; Pfeiffer, 2012;
Subotnik & Jarvin, 2005).
Characteristics commonly associated with giftedness include advanced language and reason-
ing skills, conversation, and interests more aligned with older children and adults, impressive
long-term memory, intuitive understanding of concepts, insatiable curiosity, advanced ability to
connect disparate ideas and appreciate relationships, rapid learning, and heightened sensitivity
(Robinson, 2008; Pfeiffer, 2009). By middle or high school, the gifted student demonstrates
uncanny high potential and a thirst to excel in one or more specific academic domains. And the
gifted student is likely to benefit from special academic resources and programs, especially if
they align with their unique profile of abilities and interests.
The ideal situation is for our schools to have the resources to include as many students of
uncanny high potential and thirst to excel as possible. So that ultimately, from those whom we
select and from those who participate in gifted programs, a large percentage go on to accomplish
extraordinary things (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; Pfeiffer, 2011, 2012). Of course, this is not the
typical situation in America’s schools, where funds are limited and resources scarce, and many
high-ability students go unidentified and unattended.
6 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

The development of talent among high-ability students requires more than general intellectual
ability (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 2004; Bloom, 1982; Lubinski, 2010; Nisbett, 2009). Even the
most precise psychological assessment tools can at best only predict the likelihood of later out-
standing accomplishment. Many students identified as intellectually gifted when young grow up
and, as adults, demonstrate no special or extraordinary talent. And many students not recognized
as having any special gifts when young are, what we call “late bloomers,” and astound us with
extraordinary accomplishments as adults. Many factors, in addition to intelligence, contribute to
extraordinary accomplishments in later life. The notion of giftedness as developing expertise,
proposed by Sternberg, fits well with this view (Keating, 2004; Sternberg, 1996, 1998, 2000).
In addition to general intellectual ability, specific abilities and a number of nonintellectual
factors contribute to the success trajectory of high-ability students. For example, deliberate prac-
tice has been found to predict expert performance in many different domains (Ericsson, 1996,
2005; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Ericsson, Nandagopal, & Roring, 2005; Plant,
Ericsson, Hill, & Asberg, 2005). The author’s own experience and the findings of others (e.g.,
Dweck, 2006) confirm that hard work, delay of gratification (Côté, Baker, & Abernethy, 2003;
Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989), and self-discipline (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Romer,
Duckworth, Sznitman, & Park, 2010) are also critically important, even among high-ability stu-
dents. The Chinese have a wonderful term for this, “chi ku,” translated as “eating bitterness.”

Articles in the Special Issue

This special issue brings together a group of experts from a variety of fields who share an interest in
challenging outmoded ways of identifying and assessing high-ability students. Pierson, Kilmer,
Rothlisberg, and McIntosh (2012) provide an overview on the use of brief intelligence tests with
intellectually gifted students. They raise a number of cautionary notes and cogent recommendations
in the appropriate use of brief intelligence tests. Lohman and Gambrell (2012) discuss the use of
language-reduced (nonverbal) ability tests as a popular talent identification tool for English language
learner (ELL) children. They provide compelling evidence that the use of nonverbal tests with minor-
ity group students and students from low SES should measure more than figural reasoning abilities.
Assouline and Lupklowski-Shoplik discuss the talent search model to identify high-ability
students. This innovative model developed by Julian Stanley (1996) at Johns Hopkins University
eschewed the notion of giftedness as a global category in favor of a focus on specific domains of
academic interest (Keating, 2009) and has been successfully adopted by a number of leading tal-
ent search programs nationwide. Kaufman, Plucker, and Russell (2012) provide a cogent dis-
course on the construct of creativity and on the alternative ways to measure creativity. They
discuss the creativity construct and strengths and limitations of existing measures. Erwin and
Worrell (2012) address the reasons for the underrepresentation of some racial and ethnic groups
in gifted and talented programs. Their thesis is that the disproportionally low numbers are not
the result of problems with assessment tests but rather a reflection of the intractable and long-
standing achievement gap in the United States.
Kerr and her research team report on the development of a new assessment measure, the
Distance from Privilege Measures. The scales quantify distance from privilege to understand
how populations of high ability minority group students differ from majority, privileged indi-
viduals. The scales hold the promise of increasing the number of typically underrepresented high
ability groups entering the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields
(Kerr et al., 2012). Brown (2012) address the timely question of whether the new Response to
Intervention (RtI) movement is compatible with gifted assessment. Finally, Grigorenko,
Sternberg, and their colleagues provide data on a new gifted assessment tool, Aurora, designed
to change how we both measure and conceptualize giftedness (Kornilov, Tan, Elliott, Sternberg,
& Grigorenko, 2012).
Pfeiffer 7

Concluding Comments
A number of the articles in the special issue suggest what I/O psychologists might consider Type
I organizational changes for the gifted field; recommendations for improving how existing tests
and procedures can increase the validity and utility of assessment information with high-ability
students. A few of the articles suggest more bold Type II changes; new ways of conceptualizing
the gifted construct and new assessment tools that can serve high-ability students within a talent
development paradigm. Together, the special issue provides a diversity of articles on current and
emerging perspectives on the assessment of high-ability students.
I hope that this special issue serves as a catalyst for new and innovative ways for the field to
consider psychological assessment for students of uncommon ability. Identifying high-ability
students is not easy business, especially as we move toward a more sophisticated, nuanced, and
developmental approach to giftedness. The development of talent among students of uncommon
ability requires more than simply the assessment of general intellectual ability. And the ultimate
success of gifted students in culturally valued domains will necessitate understanding the path-
ways to expertise and require the ongoing linkage of multidimensional assessment information
and multitiered, multifaceted interventions.

Acknowledgments
The author would like to express his appreciation to the Duke University Talent Identification Program and
the Duke University Women’s Soccer Program for permitting him the opportunity to work closely with
many young people of uncanny ability. Much of his thinking about giftedness and the development of tal-
ent at its highest levels is based on his experiences interacting with elite youth soccer athletes and intel-
lectually precocious adolescents on the campus of Duke University. The author also expresses his gratitude
to the following colleagues, who served as ad hoc reviewers for this special issue: Ashley Chason, Lauren
Hutto, Tania Jarosewich, Stephanie Robertson, Elizabeth Shaunessy, Hillary Hettinger Steiner, and Taylor
Thompson.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: Steven Pfeiffer is first author of the Gifted Rating Scales.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Assouline, S. G., & Lupklowski-Shoplik, A. (2012). The talent search model and gifted identification.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 45-59.
Bembenutty, H. F., & Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Inherent association between academic delay of gratifica-
tion, future time perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 35-57.
Bloom, B. S. (1982). The role of gifts and markers in the development of talent. Exceptional Children, 48,
510-522.
Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness.
In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1-19). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Borland, J. H. (2009). Myth 2: The gifted constitute 3% to 5% of the population. Moreover, giftedness
equals high IQ, which is a stable measure of aptitude. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 236-238.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Toward a more developmental behavioral genetics. Social Devel-
opment, 3, 64-65.
8 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

Brown, E. F. (2012). Is Response to Intervention and gifted assessment compatible? Journal of Pscyhoedu-
cational Assessment, 30, 103-116.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Schooling, intelligence, and income. American Psychologist, 52,
1051.
Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003). From play to practice: A developmental framework for the acqui-
sition of expertise in team sports. In J. A. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports:
Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 89-114). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic perfor-
mance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939-944.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.). (1996). The road to excellence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K. A. (2005). Recent advances in expertise research: A commentary on the contributions to the
special issue. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 223-241.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition
of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert - performance
perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287-311.
Erwin, J. O., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students
in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 74-87.
Feldhusen, J. F. (2005). Giftedness, talent, expertise, and creative achievement. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E.
Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 64-79). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Foley Nicpon, M., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (2011). High ability students: New ways to conceptualize giftedness and
provide psychological services in the schools. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 292-305.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 198-446, 118 Stat. 2647
(2004).
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Russell, C. M. (2012). Identifying and assessing creativity as a component
of giftedness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. doi: 10.1177/0734282911428196
Keating, D. P. (2004). Cognitive and brain development. In R. Lerner & L. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of
adolescent psychology (pp. 45-84). New York, NY: Wiley.
Keating, D. P. (2009). Developmental science and giftedness: An integrated life-span framework. In
F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent
across the life span (pp. 189-208). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kerr, B. A., Multon, K. D., Syme, B. L., Fry, N. M., Owens, R., Hammond, M., . . . Ackerman, C. (2012).
Development of a Distance from Privilege Measure: A tool for understanding the persistence of talented
women in STEM. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 88-102.
Kornilov, S. A., Tan, M., Elliott, J., Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2012). Gifted identification with
Aurora: Widening the spotlight. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 117-133.
Lohman, D. F., & Gambrell, J. L. (2012). Use of nonverbal measures in gifted education. Journal of Psy-
choeducational Assessment, 30, 25-44.
Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and
achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451-484.
Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344-351.
McClain, M.-C, & Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Education for the gifted in the United States today: A look at state
definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1).
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriquez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244,
933-938.
Neisser, U. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.
 Pfeiffer 9

Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count. New York, NY:
Norton.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2008).
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 31-50.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 47, 161-169.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2009). The gifted: Clinical challenges for child psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy
of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 787-790.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2011). Lessons learned in work with high ability students. Gifted Education International.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psycho-educational practice. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Pierson, E. E., Kilmer, L. M., Rothlisberg, B. A., & McIntosh, D. E. (2012). Use of brief intelligence tests
in the identification of giftedness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 10-24.
Plant, E. A., Ericsson, K. A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict grade point
average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 30, 96-116.
Plomin R., & Spinath F. M. (2004). Intelligence: Genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86, 112-129;
Robinson, N. M. (2008). The social world of gifted children and youth. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of
giftedness in children (pp. 33-52). New York, NY: Springer.
Romer, D., Duckworth, A. L., Sznitman, S., & Park, S. (2010). Can adolescents learn self-control? Delay of
gratification in the development of control over risk taking. Prevention Science, 11, 319-330.
Stanley, J. C. (1996). In the beginning: The study of mathematically precocious youth. In C. P. Benbow &
D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent (pp. 225-235). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stephens, K. R. (2008). Applicable federal and state policy, law, and legal considerations in gifted education.
In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 387-408). New York, NY: Springer.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Costs of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence (pp. 347-354).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27, 11-20.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Giftedness as developing expertise. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, &
R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed, pp. 55-66). Kidlington,
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59, 325-338.
Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing. Roeper Review, 26,
14-15.
Subotnik, R. F. (2009). Developmental transitions in giftedness and talent: Adolescence into adulthood.
In F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness and talent
across the life span (pp. 155-170). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Worrell, F. C. (2009). What does gifted mean? Personal and society identify perspectives on giftedness in
adolescence. In F. D. Horowitz, R. F. Subotnik, & D. J. Matthews (Eds.), The development of giftedness
and talent across the life span (pp. 131-152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

View publication stats