Back to [Archive] Post-review discussions

[ODP] The personality and cognitive correlates of creative achievement
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.
Admin
There are a lot of mistakes with missing spaces and too many spaces in the text. It needs a little editing.

The paper could benefit from the author employing more tables to present his results instead of verbally describing them. This is just a suggestion, not mandatory.

As for the content, I did not come across anything obviously wrong. The paper used some statistical methods I'm not familiar with, other reviewers will need to check these.

I recommend publication after editing.
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.


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.
Admin
I agree with Chuck's comments. No substantial objections to publication, just presentation/editing.
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.
Admin
We will have to make do with 'slow' review so far then. In general, it has not been slow. Three papers published so far. The days spent in review: 15, 8, 4. Average: 9 days. Very fast review compared to legacy journals.
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
Admin
Entire abstract text is in bold. Only the "Abstract" should be in bold.

1.Introduction


Space.

"a a lack of inhibition"

Fix.

so than intelligence.Openness to experience


Space.

It consists of 4 different scales which tap into separable and well­-identified components, discouraging from obtaining a composite score (Mason and Claridge, 2006).


Grammar.

Two insight problems(one mathematical and one verbal)


Space.

A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on all the (17) personality measures with oblique rotation (Oblimin).


Why oblique rotation? What were results with non-rotated solution?

indicated that cor​ relations between items


Space.

Factor 1,2,3,4 were chosen


Space (maybe just use "factors 1-4").

beyond that in O, E, N , A, C


Space.

factor1,2,3,4 above and


Space.

that in O,E,N,A,C,


Spaces. Perhaps just use "OCEAN traits".

signal in factor 1,2,3,4 above


Space.

And so on. Paper needs heavy editing for spacing problems.

Some tables report purport to report significant (p<0.05) variables, but the variables are not significant at that level according to the table itself.

The text has no reference to table 2, but it is found in the appendix. ?

The first reference is misformatted (split over 2 lines).
I've corrected all the mistakes. Find attached the correct version.