LnuOpen (Linnaeus University)
Not a member yet
3576 research outputs found
Sort by
The Replication Dilemma: Potential Challenges in Measuring Replication Value—A Commentary on Isager et al. (2025)
No full textThe authors (Isager et al., 2025) start with the main assumption that researchers’ efforts toward replications are constrained by resources, and they propose a simple, practically scalable framework of research replication value that guides the researchers and the scientific community at large intending to achieve bigger bang for the buck. Specifically, the authors propose a framework that combines citation impact and sample size of the original articles as a metric for assessing replication value. This implies that original studies with higher scores on this metric can be prioritized for replication efforts. We thoroughly agree with the authors’ assumption and indeed support the view of working towards an optimal framework that helps the community achieve maximum research impact from the replication efforts. In this commentary, we propose to discuss three important limitations that have to be considered before using such metrics. We thoroughly agree with the authors' assumption, and indeed support the view of working towards an optimal framework that helps the community achieve maximum research impact from the replication efforts. In this commentary, we propose to discuss three important limitations that have to be considered before using such metrics
Responsible Research Assessment I: Implementing DORA and CoARA for hiring and promotion in psychology
No full textThe use of journal impact factors and other metric indicators of research productivity, such as the h-index, has been heavily criticized for being invalid for the assessment of individual researchers and for fueling a detrimental "publish or perish" culture. Multiple initiatives call for developing alternatives to existing metrics that better reflect quality (instead of quantity) in research assessment. This report, written by a task force established by the German Psychological Society, proposes how responsible research assessment could be done in the field of psychology. We present four principles of responsible research assessment in hiring and promotion and suggest a two-phase assessment procedure that combines the objectivity and efficiency of indicators with a qualitative, discursive assessment of shortlisted candidates. The main aspects of our proposal are (a) to broaden the range of relevant research contributions to include published data sets and research software, along with research papers, and (b) to place greater emphasis on quality and methodological rigor in research evaluation
Comments on Cassese and Holman 2019 “Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race”
No full textDuring his campaign for the Republican Party nomination and for U.S. president, Donald Trump suggested that Hillary Clinton benefited from playing a “woman card”. The effect of exposure to Trump’s woman-card attack was investigated in the Cassese and Holman (2019) Political Psychology article “Playing the woman card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 U.S. presidential race”. However, neither Cassese and Holman (2019) nor a reanalysis of data analyzed in the article provided sufficient evidence for key claims in the article. Moreover, Cassese and Holman (2019) is unclear whether its Study 2 experimental data could be used to test claims made based on its Study 1 non-experimental data, providing an example of how journal policy requiring access to survey questionnaires could help peer reviewers and readers better assess reported research
Pre-replication: Anything Goes, Once
No full textIn this commentary, we propose pre-replication as a necessary epistemic, analytic, and axiologic exercise to be carried out before each replication
Avgrunden som bild för det politiskt förkastliga: En kritisk metaforanalys av benämningarna avgrundsvänster och avgrundshöger
Full text linkThinking Beyond RVCN: Addressing the Complexity of Replication Target Selection
No full textIsager, van ’t Veer and Lakens (2025) proposed a quantitative operationalization of replication value (denoted RVCN), using average yearly citation count and sample size as proxies for value and uncertainty, respectively. In this commentary, we suggest that the approach of Isager et al., while a good theoretical departure point, oversimplifies the complex decision-making process that underpins replication target selection in practice. We present what we view as some issues with RVCN, notably the use of citation count and ambiguity as to whether RVCN is prescriptive or descriptive. We also present preliminary empirical evidence that RVCN diverges on its performance as a replication target selection method, compared with existing selection methods (such as those published by us in the past). We conclude with the recommendation that going forward, approaches should emphasize the multifaceted nature of replication target selection to maximize their practical utility.
The rot in the state of Sweden: On the hypocrisy of the canon debate
Full text linkDiscussion of canon debate in Sweden
