The personality traits and creative achievement of 96 individuals were assessed using self-report questionnaires. Creative potential was assessed with Divergent Thinking tests and a short version of the Remote Associates Test. Four factors of personality were extracted with Principal Component Analysis. One factor (“Ideational Fluency”) emerged from the 6 divergent thinking tests. Relationships between personality factors and scores on the Creative Achivement Questionnaire (CAQ), with its subsections CAQ Science and CAQ Art, “Ideational Fluency”, Insight Problems were explored with multiple regression, showing personality differences associated with artistic and scientific creativity.The relationship between creative potential and creative achievement was explored, showing cognitive differences between artistic and scientific achievers. A brief discussion of the relationship between sex and scientific achievement is presented. It is suggested that cognitive traits, rather than personality, mediate this relationship. Finally, it is argued that similar cognitive traits account for creative production at all levels of achievement.

Can someone else please review this?

This paper is very hard to understand. The beta coefficients are presented in a somewhat disorganized fashion. It is unclear what is being regressed on what. It's also unclear whether the CAQ and divergent thinking tests were jointly factor analyzed to produce a creativity measure, or only the divergent thinking tests.

This paper is very hard to understand. The beta coefficients are presented in a somewhat disorganized fashion. It is unclear what is being regressed on what. It's also unclear whether the CAQ and divergent thinking tests were jointly factor analyzed to produce a creativity measure, or only the divergent thinking tests.

It's perfectly clear to me

It isn't to me.

It isn't to me.

Well, it cannot be clear to everyone. I can live even if you do not understand this paper.

The personality traits and creative achievement of 96 individuals were assessed using self-report questionnaires.

A creative paper. There were some typos, though. And wording issues. Regarding the passage below, did you give 95 tests -- if so I didn't see them listed -- or did you test to 95 people? I will look over this some more, later.

"The first 5 tests were administered in the paper version. After finding a suitable online platform (www.keysurvey.co.uk) the subsequent 90 were administered using the web platform."

A creative paper. There were some typos, though. And wording issues. Regarding the passage below, did you give 95 tests -- if so I didn't see them listed -- or did you test to 95 people? I will look over this some more, later.

"The first 5 tests were administered in the paper version. After finding a suitable online platform (www.keysurvey.co.uk) the subsequent 90 were administered using the web platform."

Sorry that passage was unclear. I didn't give 95 tests, but I tested 95 people.

Sorry that passage was unclear. I didn't give 95 tests, but I tested 95 people.

I asked because in your intro you said: "The personality traits and creative achievement of 96 individuals were assessed using self-report questionnaire". Are we missing a person? Generally, could you go through and fix some of the typos? If you reread it, I'm sure that you'll spot them -- e.g., missing close parentheses on page 5:

"A Science score, summing up scores in the scientific sections of the CAQ
(Invention, Science, Culinary Arts). An Art score, summing up scores in the artistic sections of the CAQ (Drama, Writing, Humour, Music,Visual Arts, Dance."

And spelling mistakes elsewhere:

"This brings further evidence to the contention that the same cognitive and personality traits account for creative production from the low to the high levels of achivement."

I don't have any substantive critiques if that's what you're looking for. The stats look fine. You clearly thought out your research goals. You just need to fix some errors and maybe reword some passages e.g., your conclusion which should better emphasize the novelty of the research i.e., focusing on variance in the normal range -- basically, Mickey Mouse revisions. Some sections are unclear because we don't following this line of research. For example you say: "Insight problems, CAQ Science, CAQ Art, CAQ Total were chosen as outcome variables. O,E,N,A,C, Sex, Age, Factor 1,2,3,4 were chosen as independent variables." Maybe you could clarify O (""),E (""),N (""),A (""),C (""). Maybe that's unnecessary given your target audience.

Is there no possible way to summarize the significant results in tables? E.g.,

"RAT as Outcome variable and first set of predictors: Using the enter method, a significant model emerged (F7,80=2.17, p= 0.046). Adjusted R square=0.086. Significant variables are shown[b] in table X. Predictor Variable B p Agreeableness .447 .044 Sex 514 .049."

But this is, again, Mickey Mouse stuff. It just makes the paper easier to read.

Sorry that passage was unclear. I didn't give 95 tests, but I tested 95 people.

I asked because in your intro you said: "The personality traits and creative achievement of 96 individuals were assessed using self-report questionnaire". Are we missing a person? Generally, could you go through and fix some of the typos? If you reread it, I'm sure that you'll spot them -- e.g., missing close parentheses on page 5:

"A Science score, summing up scores in the scientific sections of the CAQ
(Invention, Science, Culinary Arts). An Art score, summing up scores in the artistic sections of the CAQ (Drama, Writing, Humour, Music,Visual Arts, Dance."

And spelling mistakes elsewhere:

"This brings further evidence to the contention that the same cognitive and personality traits account for creative production from the low to the high levels of achivement."

I don't have any substantive critiques if that's what you're looking for. The stats look fine. You clearly thought out your research goals. You just need to fix some errors and maybe reword some passages e.g., your conclusion which should better emphasize the novelty of the research i.e., focusing on variance in the normal range -- basically, Mickey Mouse revisions. Some sections are unclear because we don't following this line of research. For example you say: "Insight problems, CAQ Science, CAQ Art, CAQ Total were chosen as outcome variables. O,E,N,A,C, Sex, Age, Factor 1,2,3,4 were chosen as independent variables." Maybe you could clarify O (""),E (""),N (""),A (""),C (""). Maybe that's unnecessary given your target audience.

Is there no possible way to summarize the significant results in tables? E.g.,

"RAT as Outcome variable and first set of predictors: Using the enter method, a significant model emerged (F7,80=2.17, p= 0.046). Adjusted R square=0.086. Significant variables are shown[b] in table X. Predictor Variable B p Agreeableness .447 .044 Sex 514 .049."

But this is, again, Mickey Mouse stuff. It just makes the paper easier to read.

Thanks for your comments. I will fix the mistakes and upload an upgraded version.

I will edit and improve the presentation. But as usual, we do not have enough reviewers. I found it hard to bring the senior academics on board. We will need more reviewers to speed up publication.

Yes, very fast compared to other journals but could do better. We do not have enough reviewers. This is normal given that we have created this journal only a few weeks ago. I am trying to find more reviewers. We need at least three times as many reviewers as we have now.

Excellent paper on the relation between personality factors and creativity. It should be published.

Find attached the upgraded version. I corrected the typos/spelling mistakes and reported regression results using tables.

This version is much better, publish

I've corrected all the mistakes. Find attached the correct version.