This paper advocates for the value of open science in many areas of research. However, after briefly reviewing the fundamental principles underlying open science practices and their use and justification, the paper identifies four incompatibilities between those principles and scientific progress through applied research. The incompatibilities concern barriers to sharing and disclosure, limitations and deficiencies of overidentifying with hypothetico-deductive methods of inference, the paradox of replication efforts resulting in less robust findings, and changes to the professional research and publication culture such that it will narrow in favor of a specific style of research. Seven recommendations are presented to maximize the value of open science while minimizing its adverse effects on the advancement of science in practice.

Pay inequality remains a pervasive problem within the workforce. However, it can be challenging for even well-meaning and responsible organizations to effectively assess which jobs should be considered equivalent and paid the same based on both legal criteria (which have shifted over time and differ across specific statutes and jurisdictions) and scientific evidence (which continues to amass). This paper intends to initiate a solution-focused discussion on how organizations can proactively categorize jobs so that pay decisions that are made about men and women are both legally defensible and fair. We propose that integrating the job analysis/job classification literature and the pay discrimination literature (e.g., legal opinions given by courts) will inform this discussion. We first review federal and state legislation and court opinions that have set legal standards for identifying pay discrimination. We then review the relevance of job analysis/job classification for systematically defining and categorizing jobs, highlighting the legal issues that should be but (to the best of our knowledge) have not been considered when undertaking such processes. Our intention is for this article to spark dialogue among researchers and practitioners regarding the identification of methods with which organizations can strive to meet equal pay standards and goals, applying both legal and scientific perspectives.

Cybervetting is the widespread practice of employers culling information from social media and/or other internet sources to screen and select job candidates. Research evaluating online screening is still in its infancy; that which exists often assumes that it offers value and utility to employers as long as they can avoid discrimination claims. Given the increasing prevalence of cybervetting, it is extremely important to probe its challenges and limitations. We seek to initiate a discussion about the negative consequences of online screening and how they can be overcome. We draw on previous literature and our own data to assess the implications of cybervetting for three key stakeholders: job candidates, hiring agents, and organizations. We also discuss future actions these stakeholders can take to manage and ameliorate harmful outcomes of cybervetting. We argue that it is the responsibility of the organizations engaged in cybervetting to identify specific goals, develop formal policies and practices, and continuously evaluate outcomes so that negative societal consequences are minimized. Should they fail to do so, professional and industry associations as well as government can and should hold them accountable.

As online graduate programs in psychology continue to proliferate, it is important to understand the research addressing the effectiveness of online graduate education so as to advise stakeholders in these programs: applicants, students, faculty, and institutions. In this article, we examine the effectiveness of online education in psychology at two levels of analysis. First, we examine empirical evidence at the course level: Do online, hybrid, and face-to-face instruction lead to different effects at the level of course outcomes? Second, we examine empirical evidence at the program level: Do online and face-to-face graduate programs provide different academic experiences for their respective students, and how does program type influence the employability of graduates? We supplement these discussions with results from a survey of faculty who converted graduate courses to online delivery methods during the COVID-19 pandemic in spring of 2020. Finally, we provide practical considerations for administrators, educators, students, and applicant stakeholders of online programs. We also offer suggestions for optimizing learning and development in online environments. Our intent is to stimulate discussion on building effective learning environments and continuing to educate optimally effective industrial-organizational psychologists, regardless of delivery modality.

Strah et al. (2021) claimed “pay inequality between men and women remains a salient societal issue” (p. 1). We agree that it is a societal issue, but we believe this issue has already been solved by existing job evaluation procedures. Job evaluation procedures have shown to be reliable and valid methods for assessing whether an organization can meet equal pay standards. The authors presented no scientific evidence that this was inaccurate. In fact, nearly 50 years ago there was considerable evidence that equal pay standards, both scientific and legal, were met by job evaluation.