No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2018
Grand et al. (2018) address an important and timely concern with scientific research with implications well beyond industrial and organizational (I-O) psychological science. As they describe a comprehensive ecosystem responsible for robust science, they have alluded to the notorious scientist–practitioner gap in our field. In this commentary I propose how that gap relates to the various stakeholders in Grand et al.’s ecosystem, and suggest professional associations take on an elevated role in the communication of science.
Target article
A Systems-Based Approach to Fostering Robust Science in Industrial-Organizational Psychology
Related commentaries (7)
Enough Talk, It's Time to Transform: A Call for Editorial Leadership for a Robust Science
If Robust Science Is Relevant Science, Then Make I-O Psychology Research More Relevant: Thoughts From a Practitioner Point of View
In Defense of HARKing
Open Science Is Robust Science
Robust Science: A Review of Journal Practices in Industrial-Organizational Psychology
The Last Line of Defense: Corrigenda and Retractions
The Role of Professional Associations in Promoting Robust Science