Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ's publication policy

Academy of Management Journal

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 841-846

  Eden, Dov ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036810803     PISSN: 00014273     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2002.7718946     Document Type: Editorial

References (25)

1. Allen, M, & Preiss, R. 1993. Replication and meta-analysis: A necessary connection. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(6): 9-20.
2. Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. 1990. Replication research: A "must" for the scientific advancement of psychology. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4): 51-69.
3. Farley, J.U., Lehmann, D.R., & Mann, L.H. 1998. Designing the next study for maximum impact. Journal of Marketing Research, 35:496-501.
4. Furchtgott, E. 1984. Replicate, again and again. American Psychologist, 39: 1315-1316.
5. Glass, G.V. 1976. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5: 3-8.
6. Hedges, L.V. 1987. How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science: The empirical cumulativeness of research. American Psychologist, 42: 443-455.
7. Hendrick, C. 1990. Replications, strict replications, and conceptual replications: Are they important? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4): 41-50.
8. Hunter, J.E. 1979. Cumulating results across studies: A critique of factor analysis, canonical correlation, MANOVA, and statistical significance testing. Invited address at the 86th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York.
9. Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. & Jackson, G.B. 1982. Metaanalysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10. Hunter J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. 1990. Methods of metaanalysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Kelly, C.W., Chase, L.J., & Tucker, R.K. 1979. Replication in experimental communication research: An analysis. Human Communication Research, 5: 338-342.
12. Kolata, G. 2002. Hormone replacement study a shock to the medical system. New York Times on the Web, http://www.nyimes.com/2002/07/10/health/10HORM.html, accessed July 12.
13. Lindsay, R.M., & Ehrenberg, A.S.C. 1993. The design of replicated studies. American Statistician, 47: 217-228.
14. Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. 1993. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48: 1181-1209.
15. Lykken, D.T. 1968. Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70: 151-159.
16. Neuliep, J.W., & Crandall, R. 1991. Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4): 85-90.
17. Neuliep, J.W., & Crandall, R. 1993a. Everyone was wrong: There are lots of replications out there. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(6): 1-8.
18. Neuliep, J.W., & Crandall, R. 1993b. Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(6): 21-29.
19. Rosenthal, R. 1979. The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 638-641.
20. Rosenthal, R. 1990. Replication in behavioral research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4): 1-30.
21. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. 1982. A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74: 166-169.
22. Rynes, S. 2002. Some reflections on contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 311-313.
23. Schmidt, F.L. 1992. What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist, 47: 1173-1181.
24. Schminke, M. 2002. Tensions. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 487-490.
25. Smith, N.E. 1970. Replication study: A neglected aspect of psychological research. American Psychologist, 25: 970-975.