Open peer commentaries to Leising et al., Ten steps toward a better personality science: How quality may be rewarded more in research evaluation
Author(s) / Creator(s)
Personality Science
Abstract / Description
The current collection comprises several comments to "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" (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6029). In their target paper, Leising et al. presented a number of steps that personality researchers (and others) may take to improve the scientific standards in their field. Leising et al. answer to these comments in a rejoinder (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7961).
Keyword(s)
personality science scientific standards research quality research evaluationPersistent Identifier
Date of first publication
2022-05-06
Journal title
Personality Science
Volume
3
Article number
Article e9227
Publisher
PsychOpen GOLD
Publication status
publishedVersion
Review status
notReviewed
Is version of
Citation
Open Commentaries to "Ten Steps Toward a Better Personality Science: How Quality may be Rewarded More in Research Evaluation" (Leising et al.). (2022). Personality Science, 3, 1-61. https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.9227
-
ps.v03.9227.pdfAdobe PDF - 547.04KBMD5: 583a0dc2307cbd47c2badd1b8a6c41ae
-
There are no other versions of this object.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Personality Scienceen_US
-
PsychArchives acquisition timestamp2023-01-23T14:06:53Z
-
Made available on2023-01-23T14:06:53Z
-
Date of first publication2022-05-06
-
Abstract / DescriptionThe current collection comprises several comments to "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" (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.6029). In their target paper, Leising et al. presented a number of steps that personality researchers (and others) may take to improve the scientific standards in their field. Leising et al. answer to these comments in a rejoinder (https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7961).en_US
-
Publication statuspublishedVersion
-
Review statusnotReviewed
-
CitationOpen Commentaries to "Ten Steps Toward a Better Personality Science: How Quality may be Rewarded More in Research Evaluation" (Leising et al.). (2022). Personality Science, 3, 1-61. https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.9227en_US
-
ISSN2700-0710
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/8013
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12472
-
Language of contenteng
-
PublisherPsychOpen GOLD
-
Is version ofhttps://doi.org/10.5964/ps.9227
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12453
-
Keyword(s)personality scienceen_US
-
Keyword(s)scientific standardsen_US
-
Keyword(s)research qualityen_US
-
Keyword(s)research evaluationen_US
-
Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)150
-
TitleOpen peer commentaries to Leising et al., Ten steps toward a better personality science: How quality may be rewarded more in research evaluationen_US
-
DRO typearticle
-
Article numberArticle e9227
-
Journal titlePersonality Science
-
Volume3
-
Visible tag(s)Version of Recorden_US