Assessing rigor and impact of research software for hiring and promotion in psychology: A comment on Gärtner et al. (2022)

Andreas Markus Brandmaier; Maximilian Ernst; Aaron Peikert

doi:10.15626/MP.2023.3715

Authors

Andreas M. Brandmaier Department of Psychology, MSB Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany; Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, Berlin, German https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8765-6982
Maximilian Ernst Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany; Max Planck School of Cognition, Leipzig, Germany
Aaron Peikert Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany; Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, Berlin, Germany; Department of Imaging Neuroscience, University College London, London, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2023.3715

Keywords:

research software, open science, metrics, rigor, impact

Abstract

Based on four principles of a more responsible research assessment in academic hiring and promotion processes, Gärtner et al. (2022) suggested an evaluation scheme for published manuscripts, reusable data sets, and research software. This commentary responds to the proposed indicators for the evaluation of research software contributions in academic hiring and promotion processes. Acknowledging the significance of research software as a critical component of modern science, we propose that an evaluation scheme must emphasize the two major dimensions of rigor and impact. Generally, we believe that research software should be recognized as valuable scientific output in academic hiring and promotion, with the hope that this incentivizes the development of more open and better research software.