Positive thinking, by definition, mostly refers to `positive reactions' in response to harsh criticism.
* * *
To continue the quest on the history of some supplement journal, I eventially checked out the person who had started it, a `Managing Editor' after E. Hubble. For some sophisticated reason, people are somewhat `forbidden' to mention the names of those `Big brothers' in history, as if the one who mentions them is trying to `wipe' their fame for her/his own benefit. As a result, they are `buried' in the history. (Somehow, I'm surprised at the phenomenon that the psychological structure of moderate adults has never changed for some thousands years).
"With the advent of our ability to produce and analyze large amounts of data, he started the Supplement Series in 1953 for the resulting long papers", wrote Helmut in an obituary* for his predecessor. In a recent stastical paper* concerning the numbers of papars, the same Helmut wrote " For Europe I did not want to dilute the contributions in A&A from the major producers with those of the countries still developing major astronomical centers". As a result, he "counted pages for France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands (FGIN) only". Among the journals he counted are AJ, ApJ, MNRAS, and A&A. In another stastical paper, he wrote "I studied the growth of five American and European journals (A&A, AJ, ApJ, MNRAS, and PASP) that publish papers on a broad range of astronomical topics". Apparently, the `Suplement Series' was out of his mind.
Helmut seemed to forget one thing, that his predecessor originated from a country far from being developed. While American were under `segregation'* in the mid of 1950's, Chandra set up the segregation among the knowledge in his Astrophysics Journal.
While ApJS has little business to me, I'm obliged to point out this `segregation of knowledge' in astrophysics. If long papers are thought to be less original, I would keep far away from ApJ, the source of potential danger of segregation.