The discussion in Perspectives on Psychological Science about criteria for scholarly merit shows a potential bias of quantitative measurements compared with informed judgments of scholarly merits. This comment argues for a selection procedure that is open for qualitative arguments.
BakkerM.van DijkA.WichertsJ. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554. doi:10.1177/1745691612459060
2.
BergM.SeeberB. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
3.
ColliniS. (2012). What are universities for? London, England: Penguin Books.
4.
FeistG. J. (2016). Intrinsic and extrinsic science: A dialectic of scientific fame. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 893–898. doi:10.1177/1745691616660535
5.
JanisI. L. (1982). Groupthink. Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (Rev. and enlarged ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
6.
JaspersK. (1946). Die Idee der Universität [The idea of the university]. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
7.
RuscioJ. (2016). Taking advantage of citation measures of scholarly impact: Hip hiph index! Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 905–908. doi:10.1177/1745691616664436
8.
SternbergR. J. (2016). “Am I famous yet?” Judging scholarly merit in psychological science: An introduction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 877–881. doi:10.1177/1745691616661777
9.
SternbergR. J.FrenschP. A. (Eds.). (1991). Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651
11.
TalebN. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York, NY: Random House.
