In this commentary, we discuss the proposed criteria in Gärtner et al. (2022) for hiring or promoting quantitative methods researchers. We argue that the criteria do not reflect aspects that are relevant to quantitative methods researchers and typical publications they produce. We introduce a new set of criteria that can be used to evaluate the performance of quantitative methods researchers in a more valid fashion. We discuss the necessity to balance scientific expertise and open science commitment in such ranking schemes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brandt et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: