To face the more complicated challenges of science in the time of the reproducibility crisis, we are revamping our organization and are hiring eight Assistant Directors (ADs; all voluntary positions), 2 per committee. All ADs will actively work with the In-Mind Board (which currently consists of Reine van der Wal, Laurens van Gestel, Oliver Genschow, and Hans IJzerman, with Daniel Sligte and Malte Friese in advisory roles). We expect a time investment of about 5/10 hours per month, with a larger time investment in the earlier months. We expect a minimum commitment of two years, but preferably four years. The ADs will get to put together their own committees, keeping in mind balance regarding representation of different groups.
We will form four committees initially, and will hire two ADs per committee:1. PR/Impact: We want to extend our reach so that the work we publish reaches larger audiences. At the same time, we want to ensure that we understand the needs of our audience. The ADs for this committee will actively work to reach those goals.
2. Community Building/Networking: Part of expanding In-Mind is building our own community and making our community stronger. We want to ensure to build a stronger professional community and to ensure that scientists are interested in bringing their work to the larger public. How can we create incentives for scientists to publish in In-Mind? In addition, how can we best network with professional societies in all domains of psychology and other stakeholders outside of the academy?
3. Securing Content/Quality Control: Securing content for a journal like In-Mind has been a challenge. This committee will ensure to support the editors to increase the number of submissions. In addition, it will focus on creating templates to help write for a wider audience. Part of the tasks can also include teaching writing workshops at conferences.
4. Solid Science: Psychology has gone through a reproducibility crisis and one of the major challenges in communicating psychological science to a wider audience is striking the balance between writing and communicating uncertainty. There are many developments that can help us better understand psychological processes (pre-registration, replication, bias correction tools, et cetera). How can we best integrate "Science 2.0" so that our science communication similarly receives a boost in accuracy?