Traditional metric indicators of scientific productivity (e. g., journal impact factors, h-index) have been criticized because (a) empirical studies cast doubt on their validity, and (b) they seem to foster a culture that prioritizes quantity over quality. Calls for specific, more valid alternatives to the current performance measures are growing louder. After adopting both DORA and CoARA, the German Psychological Society tasked a work group with outlining a more responsible form of research evaluation for psychology. Here, we report on the current status of this project; specifically, we propose a two-stage evaluation process that combines the objectivity and efficiency of metric indicators (Stage 1) with an in-depth, discursive evaluation of actual research content (Stage 2). We argue in favor of broadening the range of relevant research contributions and propose quality criteria for published research articles, datasets, and research software which focus on the methodological rigor of such contributions. These criteria are used in Phase 1 of the evaluation process to establish a minimum threshold of methodological rigor candidates must pass to be considered for hiring or promotion. In contrast, Phase 2 of the evaluation process focuses more on the actual content of the candidate's research findings, no longer making much use of metrics. We offer assessment tools that have already undergone some testing in actual assessment practice. Our goal is to initiate a broad discussion about this topic and ultimately to help strengthen the role scientific quality plays in the course of academic hiring and promotion proceedings.