Open commentaries to “ten steps toward a better personality science: how quality may be rewarded more in research evaluation” (leising et al.)

HIGHLIGHTS

SUMMARY

Personality science, scientific standards, research quality, research evaluation 1 - Comment What the Hell Is Good Science? Some commentators add an important flavor to the first point by arguing that each consen­ sus-building process is likely to be influenced by power and status hierarchies in the scientific community (see the comments by Adler; Beck et_al; Fedorenko et_al; Galang and amp; Morales; Klimstra; McLean and amp; Syed). Other comments focus on the reward scheme that Leising et_al are proposing (e_g, Asendorpf and amp; Gebauer; Beck et_al; Friedman; Schmitt). As good as Leising et_al`s intentions . . .

 



If you want to have access to all the content you need to log in!

Thanks :)

Username or E-mail:

If you don't have an account, you can create one here.