Varieties of Fame in Psychology

Open science, communal culture, and women's participation in the movement to improve science

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change-in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices-provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women's participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women's participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.

Researchers of Color, Fame, and Impact

Fame and eminence, as traditionally measured, limit the definition of impact to the publication world. We add two types of impact to the traditional measures of fame and eminence. Many of the traditional measures of fame or eminence are based on social-network connections, whereby individuals appoint other people to positions of eminence. Editorial boards are one specific example. Eminence is also limited to number of publications, for example, with little regard for the impact of those publications at the societal level. In addition to the dominant measures of eminence, societal impact broadens the definition of impact to reflect real-world changes. Two examples include mentoring, which is rarely mentioned as a criterion for eminence, and policy value, such as when research influences important public policy. These additions are discussed in reference to the general underrepresentation of researchers of color in academia.

Afterword: In the Matter of Judging Scientific Merit

In this afterword, I suggest expanding upon some of the criteria for judging scientific merit that have been discussed in the two symposia on "judging scholarly merit in psychological science." I discuss in particular the value of creativity, analysis, common sense, and wisdom and ethics in scientific contributions and discourse. In the course of this discussion, I consider where the field of judging scientific merit has been, where it is now, and where it may go.

Family Matters: Measuring Impact Through One's Academic Descendants

Scientific contributions take many forms, not all of which result in fame or are captured in traditional metrics of success (e.g., h factor). My focus is on one of the most lasting and important contributions a scientist can make: training scientists who go on to train scientists, who in turn train more scientists, etc. Academic genealogies provide many examples of scientists whose names might not be recognizable today but who trained psychologists that went on to publish very influential work. Of course success results from a combination of many factors (including but not limited to the student's abilities and motivation, luck, institutional resources, mentoring, etc.), but the field should find more ways to acknowledge the role that mentoring does play.

Are Twitter and Blogs Important Tools for the Modern Psychological Scientist?

Psychological scientists have many roles, one of which is, arguably, to communicate their research findings to a broader audience. Twitter and blogging offer relatively inexpensive options for this type of outreach. Engagement in these outreach efforts can lead to career enhancement, but also comes at a cost. We examined a sample of 327 psychological scientists to determine the prevalence of this type of outreach; while the use of Twitter appears to be on the rise, blogging remains very rare. In this piece, we explore the costs and benefits for psychological scientists of blogging and engaging with the general public on Twitter, and how tweeting and blogging might relate to academic merit and varieties of fame in psychology.

Putting Culture in the Middle in Judging Scholarly Merit

I discuss the critical importance of putting culture in the middle in judging scholarly merit in psychological science. I describe the challenges in evaluating cultural research, pointing out the various ways that ethnocentric judgments undermine the scientific merit of cultural research and the consequences of the marginalization of culture in psychological science and practice. In spite of the obstacles, cultural psychologists have made major scientific contributions and achieved scientific eminence. I further suggest that we raise the bar by including a broad, cultural approach to research as one basis for judging scientific contributions. I propose that to put culture in the middle, the evaluation of scholarly merit in psychological science should (a) consider the integration of cultural perspectives in research as a critical indicator, (b) take into consideration the international visibility of scholarship,

Taking Advantage of Citation Measures of Scholarly Impact

Professional decisions about hiring, tenure, promotion, funding, and honors are informed by assessments of scholarly impact. As a measure of influence, citations are produced by experts but accessible to nonexperts. The h index is the largest number h such that an individual has published at least h works cited at least h times apiece. This is easy to understand and calculate, as or more reliable and valid than alternative citation measures, and highly robust to missing or messy data. Striving for a large h index requires both productivity and influence, which provides healthy incentives for researchers striving for eminence through scientific impact. A number of factors that can influence h are discussed to promote the mindful use of what might otherwise be an ambiguous or misleading measure. The h index adds a transparent, objective component to assessments of scholarly impact, and even academic eminence, that merits at least two cheers.