Supporting Academic Freedom and Living Societal Responsibility

Free AccessSupporting Academic Freedom and Living Societal ResponsibilityThe Role of Authors, Reviewers, Editors in the Publication Process at EJPADragos Iliescu, Samuel Greiff, René Proyer, Matthias Ziegler, Mark Allen, Laurence Claes, Marjolein Fokkema, Penelope Hasking, Annemarie Hiemstra, Marlies Maes, Marcus Mund, Chris Nye, Ronny Scherer, Eunike Wetzel, Pia ZeinounDragos Iliescu Faculty Psychology Educational Sciences, University Bucharest, Romania Search for more papers by this author, Greiff Institute Cognitive Science Assessment (COSA), Luxembourg, Luxembourg Proyer Institut für Psychologie, Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany Ziegler Department Psychology, Humboldt Berlin, Allen School Wollongong, NSW, Australia Claes Catholic Leuven, Belgium Fokkema Deparment Methods & Statistics, Leiden, The Netherlands Hasking Speech Curtin University, Bentley, WA, Hiemstra Erasmus Social Behavioural Rotterdam, Maes Interdisciplinary Science, Utrecht Mund Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Nye Michigan State East Lansing, MI, USA Scherer Centre Management, Oslo, Norway Wetzel Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Zeinoun Beit Misk, El Maten, Lebanon authorPublished Online:April 15, 2021https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000652PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditE-Mail SectionsMoreScientific debates controversy abound all fields research are integral parts scientific discourse. In fact, they rightfully considered driving forces behind advancement inherent process. Research on psychological assessment is no exception this: Questions such as right approach measuring constructs, dimensionality factor structures data from measures, inclusion exclusion items, validity evidence scores measurement instruments, many other issues have been approached (mostly empirically) researchers interested assessment.At times topics interest academics coincide or directly intertwined with societal discussions controversies. A recent example a COVID-19 pandemic that showcases ways how (quickly evolving) body knowledge feeds into different (political) narratives (Verma, 2020) sometimes extreme conspirational beliefs. Another systemic racism, which has recently center number also within community led editorial actions journals (Bauer, 2020). Within history psychology there touching upon specific issue (e.g., Wicherts, Borsboom, et al., 2010; Dolan, 2010). closer look arguments reveals quality measures used often focal discussion point.1 Thus, tools vital aspect rekindling debate regarding academic freedom responsibility making topic relevant European Journal Psychological (EJPA).Whenever one mentioned above flare-up, another usually ensues: Should science, driven freedom, investigate questions potentially provide extremists stripes their ideology? Or should prevent science potential be misused extremists’ purposes?As editors EJPA, we finding through solve deep value disagreements reasonable way – consider philosophical paramount importance when strives balancing political religious values principles hand, seeking truth hand.From this, it easy conclude authors, reviewers, readers, every scientist need aware find responsibly dealing controversies related its findings while same time cherishing freedom. This is, means, new insight but gained traction now seems important than ever.One argument counter researchers, particular comes controversial findings, already mentioned, Here, follow Lovejoy’s (1930 cited Dobson, 1997, p. 244) definition “freedom discuss problems his/her; scientist’s express his/her conclusions …. without interference ecclesiastical authorities, administrative officials institution he/she employed”. definition, opposition tyranny, forms hard, formal, still socially legitimized power; modern democratic societies, these hard pressure censorship ceased exist replaced what currently defined responsibility. any case, according far-reaching privilege and, indeed, guiding principle universities facilities protected law. idea judged merits alone entire communities rely theoretically speaking.Why speaking? Because if isolation, assumes implicitly scientists contained ivory tower little connection “the outside world” society politics might reach beyond mere content-related dispute finding. Along lines, Barnhizer (1993) describes concept passive mode. But neither nor global world, unrealistic assume do not actively participate current prime relevance decision-making (Bavel practice, or, say least, narratives. With mind, self-serving principle, two-way street. While direction street can described toward society. Put differently, inherently tied obligation serves works better (De George, 2003). side coin extent institutions individuals working therein part society, (moral) serve society.As consequence, balance two principles: Often, go hand researching vaccine simultaneously pay justice Fortunately, most cases, disconnect between What happens, though, conflict each other? To clear up front: There straightforward answer question, essence theoretical one. It value-driven moral decision (and correct/incorrect response see assessment) weigh them against cases conflict.When oneself situation where seem clash, strongly argue value-driven, would likely place final middle ground We believe possible radical stances (as lies nature stances) weak ridiculous evaluated detail. Radically embracing completely ignoring could lead being disengaged use handing anyone carte blanche misusage misinterpretation. know only tentative, corroborated scholarly resources, subject change refinement further - either misunderstood naive readers simply willingly ignored parties. both active self-censorship, easily generate, especially current, ideologically charged Zeitgeist, clone Orwell’s 1984. exactly was meant guard first place: Currently dominating ideologies deciding researched disseminated.In Editorial, outline our vision weighed sensible careful editors, EJPA. will adapt submission publication process journal ensuring based notion plays an role beyond, inform decision-making, larger contexts educational settings policymaking general).The even reconcile regard discussed Bauer, Of note, full examples excuse waive just around, restrict Both psychologies discipline well exceptions teaches us mindful principles. inequalities come light very once more, heightened awareness solutions needed challenges across globe.Our (admittedly subjective) view context politically research, shared one: authors’ because paper responsible content; editors’ ultimately made peer-reviewed later, publish paper; reviewers’ allowed pass critical evaluation; readers’ interpret narrative misuse it. All assertions wrong absoluteness, model parties Combining diffusion well-known fallacies peer review Trafimow Rice, 2009) complexity processes involved publication, bad intention gets lost along way. course, matters worse results motives.Nobody avoid some published (however unexpectedly) feed kind narrative, we. And high standard established good reasons. allows long merits. Interestingly, positions claim disputes solved provides expertise like extend saying case ongoing discipline, everybody needs take preventive allow balanced positioning cannot agendas. EJPA able hereby mean much wish present), want steps maximize chances representations discrepant ideas positions.In order published, editor’s scrutiny. Usually, judge fit journal’s scope whether chance peer-review given general quality. latter means study presented stand firm grounds, high-quality data, adequate statistical analyses interpretations. However, ruled out submitted motivated theorizing. At sight, peripheral journal. ABC test construction, adheres (Ziegler, 2014), clearly calls robust anchoring a-priori hypotheses provided support score interpretation, utmost importance. soundness foundation anticipate influence existing surrounding racism. As propose following guideline EJPA:The articles scientifically unsound theories,2 contain convincing methods.3 past, case.Once reached stage peer-review, becomes try raise including reviewer question controversies.So, deemed suitable eventual contains politicized extremist agendas? (1) rule trumps (2) rejects basis does point choose positions. Up until now, tried care aspects implicitly, step transparency address explicitly.To end, submission/publication amended outlined below.The theories, methods. (see above). holds may fuel ideological controversies, but, papers.Authors required state far cumulated supports uses intended; stated manuscript, require explicit statements regard.Reviewers routinely asked evaluate debates.If implications association detected, authors during following:Authors explanation dealt ensured account bears minimal (in sense responsibility).Authors labeled “limitations” section manuscript discusses limitations samples, generalizability, so forth, looking perspective.Authors informed statement joint drafted alongside give guidance impact caution warranted interpretation limits.Beyond decide reflections, comments, brief reviews experts field put broader (societal) context, strengths weaknesses, initiate question.We introduce acknowledge experience predicting effect. remain open amend gather evolves. happy engage please feel free contact [email protected]. that, step, above-mentioned contribute conduct hope writing taking acknowledgment direct actions. excited effects be.We thank Jan Dörendahl his background editorial.1It highlight courses curricula reducing assessment-related programs.2In areas necessarily exploratory theory-driven worth publishing. differs science: development valid necessitates existence operationalization theories.3For clarity, continue studies scope, psychometric subject-related theories.References Barnhizer, D. R. (1993). what? Institutional neutrality, Legal Education, 43, 346–357. First citation articleGoogle Scholar P. J. (2020). call greater sensitivity wake controversy. 31, 767–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620941482 articleCrossref, Google Bavel, J., Baicker, K., Boggio, S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. Crum, A. Douglas, K. Druckman, N., Drury, Dube, O., Ellemers, Finkel, E. Fowler, H., Gelfand, Han, Haslam, S. Jetten, … Willer, Using social behavioural response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z De T. (2003). Ethics, tenure. 1, 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025421706331 (1997). Canadian 38, 244–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.38.4.244 Trafimow, D., (2009). had reviewed great past? Perspectives 4, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01107.x Verma, China’s diplomacy changing narrative. International Journal: Canada’s Global Policy Analysis, 75, 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702020930054 C. van der Maas, H. L. (2010). dangers unsystematic selection methods representativeness 46 samples African test-takers. Intelligence, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2009.11.003 V Evolution, brain size, national IQ peoples around 3000 years BC. Personality Individual Differences, 48, 104–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.020 (2014). Stop your intentions! Let’s forget construction. Assessment, 30(4), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000228 articleLink, ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byImpact Factor Wars Episode VI Return Meaningless MetricMark Dragos Iliescu22 October 2021 | Vol. 37, No. 5 Volume 37Issue 2March 2021ISSN: 1015-5759eISSN: 2151-2426 Published onlineApril InformationEuropean (2021), pp. 81-85 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000652.© 2021Hogrefe PublishingAcknowledgments:We editorial.Editorial Note:This 4 authors. associate listed author line endorsed content.