Responsible Research Assessment II: A specific proposal for hiring and promotion in psychology

Traditional metric indicators of scientific productivity (e.g., journal impact factor; h-index) have been heavily criticized for being invalid and fueling a culture that focuses on the quantity, rather than the quality, of a person’s scientific output. There is now a wide-spread demand for viable alternatives to current academic evaluation practices. In a previous report, we laid out four basic principles of a more responsible research assessment in academic hiring and promotion processes (Schönbrodt et al., 2024). The present paper offers a specific proposal for how these principles may be implemented in practice: We argue in favor of broadening the range of relevant research contributions and propose a set of concrete quality criteria (including a ready-to-use online tool) for research articles. These criteria are supposed to be used primarily in the first phase of the assessment process. Their function is to help establish a minimum threshold of methodological rigor – including empirical rigor and theoretical rigor – that candidates need to pass in order to be further considered for hiring or promotion. In contrast, the second phase of the assessment process focuses more on the actual content of candidates’ research output and necessarily uses more narrative means of assessment. The debate over ways of replacing current invalid evaluation criteria with ones that relate more closely to scientific quality continues. Its course and outcome will depend on the willingness of researchers to get involved and help shape it.