Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016 Nov;11(6):888-892. doi: 10.1177/1745691616660155.
More than a century of scientific research has shed considerable light on how a scientist's contributions to psychological science might be best assessed and duly recognized. This brief overview of that empirical evidence concentrates on recognition for lifetime career achievements in psychological science. After discussing both productivity and citation indicators, the treatment turns to critical precautions in the application of these indicators to psychologists. These issues concern both predictive validity and interjudge reliability. In the former case, not only are the predictive validities for standard indicators relatively small, but the indicators can exhibit important non-merit-based biases that undermine validity. In the latter case, peer consensus in the evaluation of scientific contributions is appreciably lower in psychology than in the natural sciences, a fact that has consequences for citation measures as well. Psychologists must therefore exercise considerable care in judging achievements in psychological science-both their own and those of others.
一个多世纪的科学研究已经在很大程度上揭示了如何最好地评估和认可科学家对心理科学的贡献。本简要概述了该实证证据，重点关注心理科学终身职业成就的认可。在讨论了生产力和引文指标之后，处理方法转向了在将这些指标应用于心理学家时的关键预防措施。这些问题涉及预测有效性和判断可靠性。在前者的情况下，不仅标准指标的预测有效性相对较小，而且这些指标可能表现出重要的非基于优点的偏差，从而破坏有效性。在后一种情况下，与自然科学相比，心理学中对科学贡献的同行共识明显较低，这一事实对引文衡量标准也有影响。因此，心理学家在判断心理科学成就时必须非常谨慎——无论是自己的还是他人的。
