LnuOpen (Linnaeus University)
Not a member yet
3576 research outputs found
Sort by
Vittnens och målsägandes berättelser – Anföring, utvidgningar och legitimering i förhörsprotokoll
Full text link
Valuing replication value
No full textThis is a commentary piece on the proposal by Isager et al. (2025) for a new metric, RVCn, designed to evaluate the replication value of psychological studies. We discuss the hope of utilizing the RVCn metric in undergraduate education and possible improvements on using some elements other than original sample size to derive this metric
Responsible Research Assessment II: A specific proposal for hiring and promotion in psychology
No full textTraditional 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., 2025). 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 (i.e., theoretical and empirical) 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 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
Falsifying the Insufficient Adjustment Model: No Evidence for Unidirectional Adjustment From Anchors
No full textAfter considering a more or less random number (i.e., an anchor), people’s subsequent estimates are biased toward that number. Such anchoring phenomena have been explained via an adjustment process that ends too early. We present a formalized version of the insufficient adjustment model, which captures the idea that decreasing the time that people have to adjust from anchors draws their estimates closer to the anchors. In four independent studies (N = 898), we could not confirm this effect of time on anchoring. Moreover, anchoring effects vanished in the two studies that deviated from classical paradigms by using a visual scale or a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm to allow faster responses. Although we propose that the current version of the insufficient adjustment model should be discarded, we believe that adjustment models hold the most potential for the future of anchoring research, and we make suggestions for what these might look like
Reimagining Consumer Psychology through Open Science Principles
No full textConsumer psychology is facing various challenges, including a lack of research integrity and unethical publishing practices. This commentary lists pivotal events and discusses related findings that point to the field's need for reform. Open Science principles are proposed as a transformative solution to promote transparency in data, methodology, access, and peer review. Consumer psychology can only be revitalized and regain credibility if it fully embraces these four pillars. Academic and professional associations with an impact on consumer psychology must set a good example by cultivating a culture of integrity and accountability in research and publishing. Consumer psychologists must educate future generations of researchers on research methodology and research ethics
Responsible Research Assessment (Parts I and II): Responses to the Commentaries
No full textWe give a brief overview of our deliberations in responding to the commentaries on our two target papers presenting the RESQUE (Research Quality Evaluation) framework. While we were able to incorporate many suggestions for improvement directly, we acknowledge that other areas (e.g., quality in theorizing) will require further elaboration. In this paper, we specifically touch on the following issues: (a) eligible types of publication, (b) measurability, (c) quality criteria for software and datasets, (d) theoretical rigor, (e) quantity, (f) authorship, (g) potential bias (against certain methodologies, types of research contributions, or subdisciplines), (h) overall rigor score, (i) weighting of individual indicators, (j) types of data, (k) impact, (l) interdisciplinary value, (m) teaching, (n) expertise, (o) gaming the new metrics, and (p) representativeness. The RESQUE framework has met with largely positive reception so far, but continues to evolve and will thrive best when community involvement stays strong
