What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research

Academy of Management Annals

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 83-110

  Aguinis, Herman ^a   Ramani, Ravi S ^a   Alabduljader, Nawaf ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85045103348     PISSN: 19416520     EISSN: 19416067     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/annals.2016.0011     Document Type: Review

References (172)

1. Aguinis, H. 2013. Performance management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
2. *Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., &Pierce, C. A. 2005. Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 94–107.
3. Aguinis, H., Boyd, B. K., Pierce, C. A., & Short, J. C. 2011. Walking new avenues in management research methods and theories: Bridging micro and macro domains. Journal of Management, 37: 395–403.
4. Aguinis, H., Cascio, W. F., & Ramani, R. S. 2017. Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 653–663.
5. Aguinis, H., de Bruin, G. P., Cunningham, D., Hall, N. L., Culpepper, S. A., & Gottfredson, R. K. 2010a. What does not kill you (sometimes) makes you stronger: Productivity fluctuations of journal editors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9: 683–695.
6. Aguinis, H., & Edwards, J. R. 2014. Methodological wishes for the next decade and how to make wishes come true. Journal of Management Studies, 51: 143–174.
7. *Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. 2013. Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 270–301.
8. Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Wright, T. A. 2011. Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 1033–1043.
9. Aguinis, H., & O’Boyle, E. H. 2014. Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67,: 313–350.
10. Aguinis, H., O’Boyle, E. H., Gonzalez-Mulé, E., & Joo, H. 2016. Cumulative advantage: Conductors and insulators of heavy-tailed productivity distributions and productivity stars. Personnel Psychology, 69: 3–66.
11. Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., & Muslin, I. S. 2009. First decade of Organizational Research Methods: Trends in design, measurement, and data-analysis topics. Organizational Research Methods, 12: 69–112.
12. Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E., & Cummings, T. G. 2014. Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13: 623–639.
13. *Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2014. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 569–595.
14. *Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Abbott, J. L., Angert, C., Park, J. H., & Kohlhausen, D. 2010b. Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 515–539.
15. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Millsap, R. E. 2008. Doctoral training in statistics, measurement, and methodology in psychology: Replication and extension of Aiken, West, Sechrest, and Reno’s (1990) survey of PhD programs in North America. American Psychologist, 63: 32–50.
16. *Alhija, F. N. A., & Levy, A. 2009. Effect size reporting practices in published articles. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69: 245–265.
17. Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 367–403.
18. *Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. 2010. On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 21: 1086–1120.
19. *Aram, J. D., & Salipante, P. F. 2003. Bridging scholarship in management: Epistemological reflections. British Journal of Management, 14: 189–205.
20. Ashkanasy, N. M. 2010. Publishing today is more difficult than ever. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 1–3.
21. *Aytug, Z. G., Rothstein, H. R., Zhou, W., & Kern, M. C. 2012. Revealed or concealed? Transparency of procedures, decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 103–133.
22. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. 2012. The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7: 543–554.
23. *Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. 2011. The (mis) reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43: 666–678.
24. *Balluerka, N., Gómez, J., & Hidalgo, D. 2005. The controversy over null hypothesis significance testing revisited. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1: 55–70.
25. *Bampton, R, & Cowton, C. 2013. Taking stock of accounting ethics scholarship: A review of the journal literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 114: 549–563.
26. *Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., Abston, K. A., Bennett, A. A., & Adkins, C. L. 2016a. Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management. Journal of Management, 42: 5–20.
27. *Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. 2016b. Editorial: Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31: 323–338.
28. *Bansal, P., & Corley, K. 2011. The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 233–237.
29. *Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. 2008. Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61: 1139–1160.
30. *Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8: 274–289.
31. Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. 2010. Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9: 715–725.
32. Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H. 2009. Scientific achievement and editorial board membership. Organizational Research Methods, 12: 211–238.
33. *Bergh, D. D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K., Su, P., Lau, C. L. L., & Joo, H. 2016. Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 477–497.
34. Bergh, D. D., Sharp, B. M., Aguinis, H., & Li, M. 2017a. Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings. Strategic Organization, 15: 423–436.
35. Bergh, D. D., Sharp, B. M., & Li, M. 2017b. Tests for identifying “red flags” in empirical findings: Demonstration and recommendations for authors, reviewers andeditors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16: 110–124.
36. *Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. 2016. A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69: 229–283.
37. *Bettis, R. A. 2012. The search for asterisks: Compromised statistical tests and flawed theories. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 108–113.
38. *Bettis, R. A., Ethiraj, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. 2016. Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 257–261.
39. *Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 2011. Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 1866–1891.
40. Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. 1982. The missing opportunity in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7: 560–569.
41. *Bono, J. E., & McNamara, G. 2011. From the editors: Publishing in AMJ- Part 2: Research design. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 657–660.
42. *Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Field, J. G., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, D. R. 2016. HARKing’s threat to organizational research: Evidence from primary and meta-analytic sources. Personnel Psychology, 69: 709–750.
43. *Boyd, B. K., Gove, S., & Hitt, M. A. 2005. Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal, 26: 239–257.
44. *Brannick, M. T., Chan, D., Conway, J. M., Lance, C. E., & Spector, P. E. 2010. What is method variance and how can we cope with it? A panel discussion. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 407–420.
45. *Brooks, M. E., Dalal, D. K., & Nolan, K. P. 2014. Are common language effect sizes easier to understand than traditional effect sizes? Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 332–340.
46. *Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. 2013. Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of Management, 39: 48–75.
47. *Brutus, S., Gill, H., & Duniewicz, K. 2010. State of science in industrial and organizational psychology: A review of self-reported limitations. Personnel Psychology, 63: 907–936.
48. Butler, N., Delaney, H., & Spoelstra, S. 2017. The grey zone: Questionable research practices in the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16: 94–109.
49. Byington, E. K, & Felps, W. 2017. Solutions to the credibility crisis in management science. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16: 142–162.
50. *Cafri, G., Kromrey, J. D., & Brannick, M. T. 2010. A meta-meta-analysis: Empirical review of statistical power, type I error rates, effect sizes, and model selection of meta-analyses published in psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45: 239–270.
51. *Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. 2002. Treatments of effect sizes and statistical significance tests in textbooks. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62: 771–782.
52. *Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. A. 2007. Review of research methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 28–43.
53. *Castro, S. L. 2002. Data analytic methods for the analysis of multilevel questions: A comparison of intraclass correlation coefficients, rwg(j), hierarchical linear modeling, within-and between-analysis, and random group resampling. Leadership Quarterly, 13: 69–93.
54. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234–246.
55. *Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. 2001. Issues of research design and construct measurement in entrepreneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 25: 101–114.
56. *Chang, S., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 178–184.
57. *Chenail, R. J. 2009. Communicating your qualitative research better. Family Business Review, 22: 105–108.
58. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. *Combs, J. G. 2010. Big samples and small effects: Let’s not trade relevance and rigor for power. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 9–13.
60. *Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. 2003. A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6: 147–168.
61. *Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. 2010. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25: 325–334.
62. *Cools, E., Armstrong, S. J., & Verbrigghe, J. 2014. Methodological practices in cognitive style research: Insights and recommendations from the field of business and psychology. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 23: 627–641.
63. Corley, K. G., & Schinoff, B. S. 2017. Who, me? An inductive study of novice experts in the context of how editors come to understand theoretical contribution. Academy of Management Perspectives, 31: 4–27.
64. *Cortina, J. M. 2003. Apples and oranges (and pears, oh my!): The search for moderators in meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 6: 415–439.
65. Cortina, J. M., Aguinis, H., & DeShon, R. P. 2017a. Twilight of dawn or of evening? A century of research methods in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 274–290.
66. Cortina, J. M., Green, J. P., Keeler, K. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2017b. Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing the models that we claim to test? Organizational Research Methods, 20: 350–378.
67. *Courville, T., & Thompson, B. 2001. Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: β is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61: 229–248.
68. Crawford, G. C., Aguinis, H., Lichtenstein, B., Davidsson, P., & McKelvey, B. 2015. Power law distributions in entrepreneurship: Implications for theory and research. Journal of Business Venturing, 30: 696–713.
69. *Crook, T. R., Shook, C. L., Morris, M. L., & Madden, T. M. 2010. Are we there yet? An assessment of research design and construct measurement practices in entrepreneurship research. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 192–206.
70. Cuervo-Cazurral, A., Andersson, U., Brannen, M. Y., Nielsen, B. B., & Reuber, A. R. 2016. From the editors: Can I trust your findings? Ruling out alternative explanations in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 47: 881–897.
71. Davis, G. F. 2015. What is organizational research for? Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 179–188.
72. *Dionne, S. D., Gupta, A., Sotak, K. L., Shirreffs, K. A., Serban, A., Hao, C., Kim, D. H., & Yammarino, F. J. 2014. A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 25: 6–35.
73. *Edwards, J. R. 2008. To prosper, organizational psychology should… overcome methodological barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 469–491.
74. *Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. 2000. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5: 155–174.
75. *Edwards, J. R., & Berry, J. W. 2010. The presence of something or the absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 668–689.
76. *Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 25–32.
77. *Evert, R. E., Martin, J. A., McLeod, M. S., & Payne, G. T. 2016. Empirics in family business research. Family Business Review, 29: 17–43.
78. *Fan, X., & Thompson, B. 2001. Confidence intervals for effect sizes confidence intervals about score reliability coefficients, please: An EPM guidelines editorial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61: 517–531.
79. *Feng, G. C. 2015. Mistakes and how to avoid mistakes in using intercoder reliability indices. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 11: 13–22.
80. *Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. 2010. How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63: 665–694.
81. *Finch, S., Cumming, G., & Thomason, N. 2001. Colloquium on effect sizes: The roles of editors, textbook authors, and the publication manual reporting of statistical inference in the Journal of Applied Psychology: Little evidence of reform. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61: 181–210.
82. *Firebaugh, G. 2007. Replication data sets and favored-hypothesis bias: Comment on Jeremy Freese (2007) and Gary King (2007). Sociological Methods & Research, 36: 200–209.
83. Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. 2017. Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20: 438–464.
84. *Freese, J. 2007a. Overcoming objections to open-source social science. Sociological Methods & Research, 36: 220–226.
85. *Freese, J. 2007b. Replication standards for quantitative social science: Why not sociology. Sociological Methods & Research, 36: 153–172.
86. George, G. 2014. Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1–6.
87. *Gephart, R. P. 2004. Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 454–462.
88. *Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. 2008. Publication bias in empirical sociological research: Do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociological Methods & Research, 37: 3–30.
89. *Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J. M., & Cunha, P. V. 2009. A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35: 393–419.
90. *Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. 2010. The ‘what’ and ‘how’ of case study rigor: Three strategies. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 710–737.
91. *Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. 2008. What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1465–1474.
92. *Goldfarb, B., & King, A. A. 2016. Scientific apophenia in strategic management research: Significance tests & mistaken inference. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 167–176.
93. Gomulya, D., & Boeker, W. 2014. How firms respond to financial restatement: CEO successors and external reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1759–1785.
94. Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. 2016. What does research reproducibility mean? Science Translational Medicine, 8: 341–353.
95. Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., Tonidandel, S., & Truxillo, D. M. in press. A systems-based approach to fostering robust science in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice.
96. Green, J. P., Tonidandel, S., & Cortina, J. M. 2016. Getting through the gate: Statistical and methodological issues raised in the reviewing process. Organizational Research Methods, 19: 402–432.
97. *Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. 2016. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1177–1195.
98. *Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. M., & Ringle, C. M. 2012. The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45: 320–340.
99. Hambrick, D. C. 2007. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1346–1352.
100. Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. 2007. Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1385–1399.
101. *Hoekstra, R., Finch, S., Kiers, H. L., & Johnson, A. 2006. Probability as certainty: Dichotomous thinking and the misuse of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13: 1033–1037.
102. *Hoetker, G. 2007. The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 331–343.
103. *Hogan, T. P., Benjamin, A., & Brezinski, K. L. 2000. Reliability methods: A note on the frequency of use of various types. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60: 523–531.
104. Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. 2017. Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management, 43: 5–18.
105. Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. 2014. Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: Institutional failure or individual fallibility? Journal of Management Studies, 51: 118–142.
106. *Hubbard, R., & Ryan, P. A. 2000. Statistical significance with comments by editors of marketing journals: The historical growth of statistical significance testing in psychology—and its future prospects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60: 661–681.
107. Hunton, J. E., & Rose, J. M. 2011. Retraction. Effects of anonymous whistle-blowing and perceived reputation threats on investigations of whistle-blowing allegations by audit committee Members. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 75–98. (Retraction published 2015, Journal of Management Studies, 52, 849).
108. *Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy Jr, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. 2009. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14: 6–23.
109. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23: 524–532.
110. Joo, H., Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. 2017. Not all non-normal distributions are created equal: Improved theoretical and measurement precision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 1022–1053.
111. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2017. Data transparency policy. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl/?tab=4. Accessed March 7, 2017.
112. Karabag, S. F., & Berggren, C. 2016. Misconduct, margin-ality and editorial practices in management, business and economics journals. PloS One, 11: e0159492.
113. Kerr, S. 1975. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 769–783.
114. *Keselman, H. J., Algina, J., & Kowalchuk, R. K. 2001. The analysis of repeated measures designs: A review. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54: 1–20.
115. Kidwell, M. C., Lazarević, L. B., Baranski, E., Hardwicke, T. E., Piechowski, S., Falkenberg, L. S., Kennett, C., Slowik, A., Sonnleitner, C., Hess-Holden, C., Errington, T. M., Fiedler, S., & Nosek, B. A. 2016. Badges to acknowledge open practices: A simple, low-cost, effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biol, 14: e1002456.
116. *Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. 2000. From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3: 211–236.
117. *Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., & Peterson, J. 2010. Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13: 644–667.
118. *LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. 2008. Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 815–852.
119. Lichtenthaler, U. 2008. Retraction. Externally commercializing technology assets: An examination of different process stages. Journal of Business Venturing, 23: 445–464 (Retraction published 2013, Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 581).
120. Maier, N. R. F. 1955. Psychology in industry: A psychological approach to industrial problems. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
121. Maitlis, S. 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 21–49.
122. Makino, S., & Chan, C. M. 2017. Skew and heavy-tail effects on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 1721–1740.
123. Mathieu, J. E., & Chen, G. 2011. The etiology of the multilevel paradigm in management research. Journal of Management, 37: 610–641.
124. *Mathieu, J. E, & Taylor, S. R. 2006. Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 1031–1056.
125. *McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. 2002. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7: 64–82.
126. *McLeod, M., Payne, G., & Evert, R. 2016. Organizational ethics research: A systematic review of methods and analytical techniques. Journal of Business Ethics, 134: 429–443.
127. Murphy, K. R., & Aguinis, H. 2017. How badly can cherry picking and question trolling produce bias in published results? Determinants and size of different forms of HARKing. Working paper. Journal of Business and Psychology.
128. Min, J., & Mitsuhashi, H. 2012. Retraction. Dynamics of unclosed triangles in alliance networks: Disappearance of brokerage positions and performance consequences. Journal of Management Studies 49: 1078–1108 (Retraction published 2016, Journal of Management Studies, 51, 868).
129. *Nickerson, R. S. 2000. Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5: 241–301.
130. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. 2012. Scientific utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7: 615–631.
131. *Nuijten, M. B., Hartgerink, C. H., Assen, M. A., Epskamp, S., & Wicherts, J. M. 2016. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behavior Research Methods, 48: 1205–1226.
132. O’Boyle, E. H, & Aguinis, H. 2012. The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65: 79–119.
133. O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. 2017. The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results meta-morphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43: 376–399.
134. *Petrocelli, J. V., Clarkson, J. J., Whitmire, M. B., & Moon, P. E. 2013. When ab≠ c–c´: Published errors in the reports of single-mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 45: 595–601.
135. *Pierce, C. A., Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. 2004. Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64: 916–924.
136. *Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2010. Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36: 94–120.
137. *Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879–903.
138. *Rogelberg, S., Adelman, M., & Askay, D. 2009. Crafting a successful manuscript: Lessons from 131 reviews. Journal of Business & Psychology, 24: 117–121.
139. Rousseau, D. M. 1985. Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 1–37.
140. *Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. 2000. Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1248–1264.
141. *Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. 2002. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7: 147–177.
142. Schmitt, N. 2017. Reflections on the Journal of Applied Psychology for 1989 to 1994: Changes in major research themes and practices over 25 years. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 564–568.
143. *Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. T., & Yammarino, F. J. 2002. The folly of theorizing “A” but testing “B”: A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed leader–member exchange illustration. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 515–551.
144. Schwab, A., & Starbuck, W. 2017. A call for openness in research reporting: How to turn covert practices into helpful tools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16: 124–141.
145. *Shen, W., Kiger, T. B., Davies, S. E., Rasch, R. L., Simon, K. M., & Ones, D. S. 2011. Samples in applied psychology: Over a decade of research in review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1055–1064.
146. *Sijtsma, K. 2016. Playing with data: Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika, 81: 1–15.
147. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22: 1359–1366.
148. *Smith-Crowe, K., Burke, M. J., Cohen, A., & Doveh, E. 2014. Statistical significance criteria for the rwg and average deviation interrater agreement indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 239–261.
149. Stapel, D. A., & Semin, G. R. 2007. Retraction. The magic spell of language: Linguistic categories and their perceptual consequences. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93: 23–33. (Retraction published 2013, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 104, 197).
150. Tashman, P., & Rivera, J. 2016. Ecological uncertainty, adaptation, and mitigation in the US ski resort industry: Managing resource dependence and institutional pressures. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1507–1525.
151. Tett, R. P., Walser, B., Brown, C., Simonet, D. V., & Tonidandel, S. 2013. The 2011 SIOP graduate program benchmarking survey part 3: Curriculum and competencies. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 50: 69–89.
152. Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Liu, H. L. 2007. Test of a model linking employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1570–1583.
153. Tsui, A. S. 2013. The spirit of science and socially responsible scholarship. Management and Organization Review, 9: 375–394.
154. *van Aken, J. E. 2004. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences: The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41: 219–246.
155. Van Iddekinge, C. H., Aguinis, H., Mackey, J. D., & DeOrtentiis, P. S. 2017. A meta-analysis of the interactive, additive, and relative effects of cognitive ability and motivation on performance. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317702220
156. *Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Ployhart, R. E. 2008. Developments in the criterion-related validation of selection procedures: A critical review and recommendations for practice. Personnel Psychology, 61: 871–925.
157. Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and motivation. NewYork: Wiley.
158. *Waldman, I. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. 2016. Thinking about data, research methods, and statistical analyses: Commentary on Sijtsma’s (2014) “Playing with Data”. Psychometrika, 81: 16–26.
159. Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. 2011. Retraction. Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 4–24 (Re-traction published 2014, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 746).
160. Weinzimmer, L. G., Mone, M. A., & Alwan, L. C. 1994. An examination of perceptions and usage of regression diagnostics in organization studies. Journal of Management, 20: 179–192.
161. *Werner, S., Praxedes, M., & Kim, H. G. 2007. The reporting of nonresponse analyses in survey research. Organizational Research Methods, 10: 287–295.
162. Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. 2011. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PloS one, 6, e26828.
163. Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Augusteijn, H. E., Bakker, M., Van Aert, R. C., & Van Assen, M. A. 2016. Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 1832.
164. *Wigboldus, D. H., & Dotsch, R. 2016. Encourage playing with data and discourage questionable reporting practices. Psychometrika, 81: 27–32.
165. Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. 2010. Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 301–324.
166. Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. 2009. Structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 543–604.
167. Worren, N., Moore, K., & Cardona, P. 2002. Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 1123–1140.
168. *Wright, P. M. 2016. Ensuring research integrity: An editor’s perspective. Journal of Management, 42: 1037–1043.
169. Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. 2010. Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 90–106.
170. *Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Chun, J. U., &Dansereau, F. 2005. Leadership and levels of analysis: A state-of-the-science review. Leadership Quarterly, 16: 879–919.
171. *Zhang, Y., & Shaw, J. D. 2012. From the editors: Publishing in AMJ-part 5: Crafting the methods and results. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 8–12.
172. Zhu, H., & Yoshikawa, T. 2016. Contingent value of director identification: The role of government directors in monitoring and resource provision in an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1787–1807.