Schönbrodt et al. (2022) and Gärtner et al. (2022) aim to outline in the target articles why and how research assessment could be improved in psychological science in accordance with DORA, resulting in a focus on abandoning the impact factor as an indicator for research quality and aligning assessment with methodological rigor and open science practices. However, I argue that their attempt is guided by a rather narrow statistical and quantitative understanding of knowledge production in psychological science. Consequently, the authors neglect the epistemic diversity within psychological science leading to the potential danger of committing epistemic injustice. Hence, the criteria they introduce for research assessment might be appropriate for some approaches to knowledge production it could however neglect or systematically disadvantage others. Furthermore, I claim that the authors lack some epistemic (intellectual) humility about their proposal. Further information is required regarding when and for which approaches their proposal is appropriate and maybe even more importantly when and where it is not. Similarly, a lot of the proposed improvements of the reform movement, like the one introduced in the target articles, are probably nothing more than trial and error due to a lack of investigation of their epistemic usefulness and understanding of underlying mechanisms and theories. Finally, I argue that with more awareness about epistemic diversity in psychological science in combination with more epistemic (intellectual) humility the danger of epistemic injustice could be attenuated.

We constructed citation maps of eight canonical articles in the reproducibility discourse of the reform movement in science to explore how this discourse travels through the research landscape. The map indicates that this discourse largely remains within the confines of the biomedical and social sciences where they originated. This suggests that research policies and assessment guidelines that are based on this discourse might be inappropriate or inapplicable for other disciplines making any universal guidelines and policies problematic and carrying with it the danger of epistemic injustice. Therefore, we recommend further investigations into whether and how reproducibility is talked about locally within different and diverse fields across the research landscape.