Ten steps toward a better personality science - How quality may be rewarded 
more in research evaluation

Leising, Daniel; Thielmann, Isabel; Glöckner, Andreas; Gärtner, Anne; Schönbrodt, Felix

doi:10.5964/ps.v3i

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Please note that a newer version of this item is available:
https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/item/item_3365475_10

DetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

Ten steps toward a better personality science - How quality may be rewarded more in research evaluation

MPS-Authors

/persons/resource/persons269024

Thielmann, Isabel
Criminology, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Max Planck Society;
Independent Research Group: Personality, Identity, and Crime, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (restricted access)

There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.

Fulltext (public)

6029-Article-71789-4-10-20220506.pdf
(Any fulltext), 439KB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Leising, D., Thielmann, I., Glöckner, A., Gärtner, A., & Schönbrodt, F. (2022). Ten steps toward a better personality science - How quality may be rewarded more in research evaluation. Personality Science, (3): e6029. doi:10.5964/ps.v3i.

Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0009-E967-D

Abstract

This target article is part of a theme bundle including open peer commentaries (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.9227) and a rejoinder by the authors (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7961). We point out ten
steps that we think will go a long way in improving personality science. The first five steps focus on fostering consensus regarding (1) research goals, (2) terminology, (3) measurement practices, (4) data handling, and (5) the current state of theory and evidence. The other five steps focus on
improving the credibility of empirical research, through (6) formal modelling, (7) mandatory pre-registration for confirmatory claims, (8) replication as a routine practice, (9) planning for informative studies (e.g., in terms of statistical power), and (10) making data, analysis scripts, and materials openly available. The current, quantity-based incentive structure in academia clearly
stands in the way of implementing many of these practices, resulting in a research literature with sometimes questionable utility and/or integrity. As a solution, we propose a more quality-based reward scheme that explicitly weights published research by its Good Science merits. Scientists need to be increasingly rewarded for doing good work, not just lots of work.