The use of journal impact factors and other metric indicators of research productivity, such as the h-index, has been heavily criticized for being invalid for the assessment of individual researchers and for fueling a detrimental “publish or perish” culture. Multiple initiatives call for developing alternatives to existing metrics that better reflect quality (instead of quantity) in research assessment. This report, written by a task force established by the German Psychological Society, proposes how responsible research assessment could be done in the field of psychology. We present four principles of responsible research assessment in hiring and promotion and suggest a two-phase assessment procedure that combines the objectivity and efficiency of indicators with a qualitative, discursive assessment of shortlisted candidates. The main aspects of our proposal are (a) to broaden the range of relevant research contributions to include published data sets and research software, along with research papers, and (b) to place greater emphasis on quality and rigor in research evaluation.

Abstract. Central values of science are, among others, transparency, verifiability, replicability, and openness. The currently very prominent Open Science (OS) movement supports these values. Among its most important principles are open methodology (comprehensive and useful documentation of methods and materials used), open access to published research output, and open data (making collected data available for re-analyses). We here present a survey conducted among members of the German Psychological Society ( N = 337), in which we applied a mixed-methods approach (quantitative and qualitative data) to assess attitudes toward OS in general and toward data sharing more specifically. Attitudes toward OS were distinguished into positive expectations (“hopes”) and negative expectations (“fears”). These were un-correlated. There were generally more hopes associated with OS and data sharing than fears. Both hopes and fears were highest among early career researchers and lowest among professors. The analysis of the open answers revealed that generally positive attitudes toward data sharing (especially sharing of data related to a published article) are somewhat diminished by cost/benefit considerations. The results are discussed with respect to individual researchers’ behavior and with respect to structural changes in the research system.

Central values of science are, among others, transparency, verifiability, replicability and openness. The currently very prominent Open Science (OS) movement supports these values. Among its most important principles are open methodology (comprehensive and useful documentation of methods and materials used), open access to published research output, and open data (making collected data available for re-analyses). We here present a survey conducted among members of the German Psychological Society (N = 337), in which we applied a mixed-methods approach (quantitative and qualitative data) to assess attitudes towards OS in general and towards data sharing more specifically. Attitudes towards OS were distinguished into positive expectations ("hopes") and negative expectations ("fears"). These were un-correlated. There were generally more hopes associated with OS and data sharing than fears. Both hopes and fears were highest among early career researchers and lowest among professors. The analysis of the open answers revealed that generally positive attitudes towards data sharing (especially sharing of data related to a published article) are somewhat diminished by cost/benefit considerations. The results are discussed with respect to individual researchers' behavior and with respect to structural changes in the research system. Abstract: 187 words Key words: open science, public data sharing, attitudes towards open science: data sharing hopes and data sharing fears Word count (excluding tables, figures and references): 3.847

The Key Indicator Methods (KIM) assess the risk of manual handling of loads on a screening level. Their purpose is the recognition and removal of job design deficits. The risk assessment is carried out in two stages. The first stage is the ordinal scaled description of workload items. The second stage is the evaluation of the degree of probability of physical overload. The intended user population are both practitioners in enterprises such as safety engineers, industrial engineers, and inspectors. The first two KIM were developed and tested from 1996 to 2001 in connection with the implementation of the EU directives into German national legislation. They consist of two independent, but formally adaptable methods for lifting, holding, and carrying and for pulling, and pushing. The KIM were drafted in the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) in close collaboration with the German Labour Inspectors. Numerous companies, scientists, statutory accident insurances, institutions, employer associations, and trade unions were involved. Since their first publication in 2000 and 2001, these methods are widely accepted among possible users with a corresponding broad application in Germany. They are recommended by the EU Labour Inspector Conference for application. In 2007 a third KIM for manual handling operating tasks KIM MHO were developed, tested, and validated in the last four years.

BackgroundUpper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders are common in the working population. The economic and social impact of such disorders is considerable. Long-time, dynamic repetitive exposure of the hand-arm system during manual handling operations (MHO) alone or in combination with static and postural effort are recognised as causes of musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders. The assessment of these manual work tasks is crucial to estimate health risks of exposed employees. For these work tasks, a new method for the assessment of the working conditions was developed by the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) and released as a draft in the year 2007. The draft of the so-called Key Indicator Method for Manual Handling Operations (KIM-MHO) was developed in analogy with the existing KIM for Lifting/Holding/Carrying (KIM-LHC) and Pulling/Pushing (KIM-PP) of loads. The KIM-MHO is designed to fill the gap existing in risk assessment of manual work processes, since the existing KIMs deal only with manual handling of loads.This research project focused on the following:- Examination of the validity of workplace assessment with the KIM-MHO comparing expert ratings with the results of the observations.- Examination of the objectivity of workplace assessment with the KIM-MHO applied by different examiners.- Examination of the criterion validity of the risk assessment provided by KIM-MHO with respect to the association between exposure and the occurrence and prevalence of health related outcomes.Methods/DesignTo determine the objectivity and validity of workplace assessment, the KIM-MHO is applied by occupational health and safety officers at different workplaces involving manual handling operations.To determine the criterion validity of risk assessment, a survey of employees at different workplaces takes place with standardised questionnaires and interviews about symptoms in the neck and upper extremities. In addition, physical examinations of these employees following a standardised medical diagnostic procedure are also carried out.DiscussionThis research project will provide scientific evaluation of the new KIM-MHO and, if necessary, indicate areas for modification to improve this new method for assessment of the health risk of manual handling operations at diverse workplaces.