Author:
Brandt Holger,Henninger Mirka,Ulitzsch Esther,Kleinke Kristian,Schäfer Thomas
Abstract
In this commentary, we discuss the proposed criteria in Gärtner et al. (2022) for hiring or promoting quantitative methods researchers. We argue that the criteria do not reflect aspects that are relevant to quantitative methods researchers and typical publications they produce. We introduce a new set of criteria that can be used to evaluate the performance of quantitative methods researchers in a more valid fashion. We discuss the necessity to balance scientific expertise and open science commitment in such ranking schemes.
Reference7 articles.
1. Fletcher, C. (1999). The implication of research on gender differences in self-assessment and 360 degree appraisal. Human Resource Management Journal, 9, 39-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.1999.tb00187.x
2. Gärtner, A., Leising, D., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2022). Responsible research assessment II: A specific proposal for hiring and promotion in psychology. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5yexm
3. Heck, D. W., Boehm, U., Böing-Messing, F., Bürkner, P.-C., Derks, K., Dienes, Z., Fu, Q., Gu, X., Karimova, D., Kiers, H. A., et al. (2022). A review of applications of the bayes factor in psychological research. Psychological Methods. Available for free on PsyArXiv.
4. Henninger, M., Debelak, R., Rothacher, Y., & Strobl, C. (2023). Interpretable machine learning for psychological research: Opportunities and pitfalls. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000560
5. Nestler, S., & Humberg, S. (2022). A lasso and a regression tree mixed-effect model with random effects for the level, the residual variance, and the autocorrelation. Psychometrika, 87(2), 506-532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-021-09787-w