Share and Share Alike? A Review of Empirical Evidence Concerning Information Sharing Among Researchers

Management Research News

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 41-49

  Hubbard, Raymond ^a   Little, Eldon L ^b  

^a DRAKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTHEAST   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992974832     PISSN: 01409174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/eb028516     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Aaker, D.A., & Keller, K.L. (1990, January). “Consumer evaluations of brand extensions.” Journal of Marketing, p. 27-40.
2. Anderson, R.G., & Dewald, W.G. (1994, November/December). “Replication and scientific standards in applied economics a decade after the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking project.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, pp. 79-83.
3. Ceci, S.J., & Walker, E. (1983, April). “Private archives and public needs,” American Psychologist, pp. 414-423.
4. Craig, J.R., & Reese, S.C. (1973, August). “Retention of raw data: A problem revisited.” American Psychologist, p. 723.
5. Dewald, W.G., Thursby, J.G., & Anderson, R.G. (1986, September). “Replication in empirical economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking project.” American Economic Review, pp. 587-603.
6. Eaton, W.Q. (1984, November). “On obtaining data for research investigations.” American Psychologist, pp. 1325-1326.
7. Feigenbaum, S., & Levy, D.M. (1993). “The market for (ir)reproducible econometrics.” Social Epistemology, pp. 215-232.
8. Fienberg, S.E., Martin, M.E., & Straf, M.L., eds. (1985). Sharing research data. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
9. Fuess, Jr., S.M. (1996, Spring). “On replication in business and economics research: The QJBE case.” Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, pp. 4-14.
10. Gasparikova-Krasnec, M., & Ging, N. (1987, March). “Experimental replication and professional cooperation.” American Psychologist, pp. 266-267.
11. Greenwald, A.G. (1976, January). “An editorial.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 1-7.
12. Hauser, R.M. (1987, December). “Sharing data: It's time for ASA journals to follow the folkways of a scientific sociology.” American Sociological Review, p. vi.
13. Holden, S., & Barwise, P. (1995). “An empirical investigation of what it means to generalise.” Proceedings, 24th EMAC Conference, Paris, France, pp. 1677-1685.
14. Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J.S. (1994, June). “Replications and extensions in marketing: rarely published but quite contrary.” International Journal of Research in Marketing, pp. 233-248.
15. Hubbard, R. & Lindsay, R.M. (1995). “Caveat emptor applies to the consumption of published empirical research results, too.” Management Research News, pp. 49-55.
16. Hubbard, R., & Vetter, D.E. (1996, February). “An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing.” Journal of Business Research, pp. 153-164.
17. Innes, J. M. (1980, September). “The needs of others.” American Psychologist, p. 854.
18. Kinnear, T.C. (1992, January). “From the editor.” Journal of Marketing, pp. 1-3.
19. Madden, C.S., Franz, L.S., & Mittelstaedt, R.A. (1979). “The replicability of research in marketing: Reported content and author cooperation,” in Conceptual and theoretical developments in marketing, eds. Ferrell, O.C., Brown, S.W., & Lamb, C.W., American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 76-85.
20. Mayer, T. (1980, April). “Economics as a hard science: Realistic goal or wishful thinking?” Economic Inquiry, pp. 165-178.
21. Reid, L.N., Rotfeld, H.J., & Wimmer, R.D. (1982, September). “How researchers respond to replication requests.” Journal of Consumer Research, pp. 216-218.
22. Sieber, J.E. (1991). “Introduction: Sharing social science data,” in Sharing social science data: advantages and challenges, ed. Joan E. Sieber, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 1-18.
23. Weitz, B.A. (1992, May). “Editorial.” Journal of Marketing Research, p. 161.
24. Wolins, L. (1962, September). “Responsibility for raw data.” American Psychologist, pp. 657-658.