Response to responsible research assessment I and II from the perspective of the DGPs working group on open science in clinical psychology


  • Jakob Fink-Lamotte University of Potsdam
  • Kevin Hilbert Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Dorothée Bentz 3University of Basel, Medical Faculty, Division of Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Simon Blackwell Mental Health Research and Treatment Center, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany
  • Jan R. Boehnke School of Health Sciences, University of Dundee
  • Juliane Burghardt Karl Landsteiner Privatuniversität für Gesundheitswissenschaften
  • Barbara Cludius Department of Psychology, LMU Munich
  • Johannes C. Ehrenthal Department of Psychology, University of Cologne
  • Moritz Elsaesser Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Center and Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg
  • Anke Haberkamp University of Marburg, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy
  • Tanja Hechler Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institute for Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychology for Children and Adolescents
  • Anja Kräplin Faculty of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden
  • Christian Paret Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Central Institute of Mental Health Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim / Heidelberg University
  • Lars Schulze Freie Universität Berlin, Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy
  • Sarah Wilker University of Bielefeld
  • Helen Niemeyer Freie Universität Berlin, Clinical-Psychological Intervention



Clinical Psychology, Career, Assessment


We comment on the papers by Schönbrodt et al. (2022) and Gärtner et al. (2022) on responsible research assessment from the perspective of clinical psychology and psychotherapy research. Schönbrodt et al. (2022) propose four principles to guide hiring and promotion in psychology: (1) In addition to publications in scientific journals, data sets and the development of research software should be considered. (2) Quantitative metrics can be useful, but they should be valid and applied responsibly. (3) Methodological rigor, research impact, and work quantity should be considered as three separate dimensions for evaluating research contributions. (4) The quality of work should be prioritized over the number of citations or the quantity of research output. From the perspective of clinical psychology, we endorse the initiative to update current practice by establishing a matrix for comprehensive, transparent and fair evaluation criteria. In the following, we will both comment on and complement these criteria from a clinical-psychological perspective.


Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Kevin Hilbert, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

shared first authorship






Special Topic