scholarly journals The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piers Steel ◽  
Sjoerd Beugelsdijk ◽  
Herman Aguinis
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Outlier Identification ◽  
Business Studies ◽  
Award Winning ◽  
Future Research Directions ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Highly Cited

AbstractMeta-analyses summarize a field’s research base and are therefore highly influential. Despite their value, the standards for an excellent meta-analysis, one that is potentially award-winning, have changed in the last decade. Each step of a meta-analysis is now more formalized, from the identification of relevant articles to coding, moderator analysis, and reporting of results. What was exemplary a decade ago can be somewhat dated today. Using the award-winning meta-analysis by Stahl et al. (Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4):690–709, 2010) as an exemplar, we adopted a multi-disciplinary approach (e.g., management, psychology, health sciences) to summarize the anatomy (i.e., fundamental components) of a modern meta-analysis, focusing on: (1) data collection (i.e., literature search and screening, coding), (2) data preparation (i.e., treatment of multiple effect sizes, outlier identification and management, publication bias), (3) data analysis (i.e., average effect sizes, heterogeneity of effect sizes, moderator search), and (4) reporting (i.e., transparency and reproducibility, future research directions). In addition, we provide guidelines and a decision-making tree for when even foundational and highly cited meta-analyses should be updated. Based on the latest evidence, we summarize what journal editors and reviewers should expect, authors should provide, and readers (i.e., other researchers, practitioners, and policymakers) should consider about meta-analytic reviews.

Tourism research for the GCC region: Current status and future research directions

2021 ◽  
pp. 135481662199996
Author(s):  
Ali Salman Saleh ◽  
Charbel Bassil ◽  
Arsalan Safari
Keyword(s):  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Regional Tourism ◽  
Research Theme ◽  
Tourism Sector ◽  
Future Research Directions ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Tourism in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries has recently been considered by policymakers as a new avenue for economic diversification. Despite the considerable literature concerning the impact of tourism worldwide, only a limited number of studies have looked at the tourism sector in the GCC region or analyzed its economic, sociocultural, and environmental impacts. This article therefore conducts a systematic review of the state of the literature related to tourism in the GCC region. It provides effective insights about the current status, gaps, and challenges and proposes future research directions in this area for academics, practitioners, and policymakers with an interest in regional tourism development. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses approach was used to identify and select the papers. Some 23 papers were identified and analyzed. The majority of these studies focused on the United Arab Emirates, specifically the Dubai emirate. We found the most dominant research theme to be tourism planning.

scholarly journals Pre-post effect sizes should be avoided in meta-analyses

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 364-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Cuijpers ◽  
E. Weitz ◽  
I. A. Cristea ◽  
J. Twisk
Keyword(s):  
Comparison Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Natural Processes ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour ◽  
Post Test ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Highly Cited

AimsThe standardised mean difference (SMD) is one of the most used effect sizes to indicate the effects of treatments. It indicates the difference between a treatment and comparison group after treatment has ended, in terms of standard deviations. Some meta-analyses, including several highly cited and influential ones, use the pre-post SMD, indicating the difference between baseline and post-test within one (treatment group).MethodsIn this paper, we argue that these pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses and we describe the arguments why pre-post SMDs can result in biased outcomes.ResultsOne important reason why pre-post SMDs should be avoided is that the scores on baseline and post-test are not independent of each other. The value for the correlation should be used in the calculation of the SMD, while this value is typically not known. We used data from an ‘individual patient data’ meta-analysis of trials comparing cognitive behaviour therapy and anti-depressive medication, to show that this problem can lead to considerable errors in the estimation of the SMDs. Another even more important reason why pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses is that they are influenced by natural processes and characteristics of the patients and settings, and these cannot be discerned from the effects of the intervention. Between-group SMDs are much better because they control for such variables and these variables only affect the between group SMD when they are related to the effects of the intervention.ConclusionsWe conclude that pre-post SMDs should be avoided in meta-analyses as using them probably results in biased outcomes.

Greater Male Variability in Cooperation: Meta-Analytic Evidence for an Evolutionary Perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 095679762095663
Author(s):  
Christian Thöni ◽  
Stefan Volk ◽  
Jose M. Cortina
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Citizenship ◽  
Organizational Citizenship Behavior ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Social Dilemma ◽  
Citizenship Behavior ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evolutionary Perspective ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Future Research Directions ◽  
Meta Analyses

Do men and women differ systematically in their cooperation behaviors? Researchers have long grappled with this question, and studies have returned equivocal results. We developed an evolutionary perspective according to which men are characterized by greater intrasex variability in cooperation as a result of sex-differentiated psychological adaptations. We tested our hypothesis in two meta-analyses. The first involved the raw data of 40 samples from 23 social-dilemma studies with 8,123 participants. Findings provided strong support for our perspective. Whereas we found that the two sexes do not differ in average cooperation levels, men are much more likely to behave either selfishly or altruistically, whereas women are more likely to be moderately cooperative. We confirmed our findings in a second meta-analytic study of 28 samples from 23 studies of organizational citizenship behavior with 13,985 participants. Our results highlight the importance of taking intrasex variability into consideration when studying sex differences in cooperation and suggest important future research directions.

scholarly journals Demystifying the process of scholarly peer-review: an autoethnographic investigation of feedback literacy of two award-winning peer reviewers

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sin Wang Chong ◽  
Shannon Mason
Keyword(s):  
Vital Role ◽  
Ecological Systems ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Contextual Influences ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Award Winning ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Future Research Directions ◽  
Shed Light

AbstractPeer reviewers serve a vital role in assessing the value of published scholarship and improving the quality of submitted manuscripts. To provide more appropriate and systematic support to peer reviewers, especially those new to the role, this study documents the feedback practices and experiences of two award-winning peer reviewers in the field of education. Adopting a conceptual framework of feedback literacy and an autoethnographic-ecological lens, findings shed light on how the two authors design opportunities for feedback uptake, navigate responsibilities, reflect on their feedback experiences, and understand journal standards. Informed by ecological systems theory, the reflective narratives reveal how they unravel the five layers of contextual influences on their feedback practices as peer reviewers (micro, meso, exo, macro, chrono). Implications related to peer reviewer support are discussed and future research directions are proposed.

Vicarious Dissonance : Meta-analysis registered report

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Jaubert ◽  
Adrien Alejandro Fillon ◽  
Lionel Souchet ◽  
Fabien Girandola
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Study Heterogeneity ◽  
Future Research Directions ◽  
Set Up

Vicarious dissonance is the phenomenon that describes the possibility that individuals may experience cognitive dissonance vicariously when they witness an inconsistent act committed by a member of their own group. After more than 15 years of research, uncertainties remain as to the effectiveness of experimental procedures set up in vicarious dissonance to obtain effects, raising the need for a meta-analytic summary of the literature. In this registered report, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = [X], n = [X]) of the effect of vicarious dissonance. We found [empirical support] for the vicarious dissonance effect, [g = X]. Vicarious dissonance is a meaningful effect for [X]. Study heterogeneity was [Low/high]. [Summarize results]. We tested [List of moderators]. We found that [meaningful moderation] moderated vicarious dissonance. Vicarious dissonance was stronger [list of conditions]. [Brief descriptions of strengths and limitations, and future research directions] We registered our meta-analysis here: https://osf.io/t5vs7/?view_only=e9dc20e90a584afbb2456aecd8809c9b

Corporate Governance Research in Accounting and Auditing: Insights, Practice Implications, and Future Research Directions

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph V. Carcello ◽  
Dana R. Hermanson ◽  
Zhongxia (Shelly) Ye
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Audit Committee ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Corporate Board ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Research Directions ◽  
Research Paradigms ◽  
The Past ◽  
Future Research Directions

SUMMARY Over the past two decades, the corporate governance literature in accounting and auditing has grown rapidly. To better understand this body of work, we discuss 12 recent literature review or meta-analysis papers and summarize selected results (i.e., clusters of papers with new and interesting results) from recent empirical research papers, after reviewing the findings of over 250 studies. Our corporate governance focus is primarily on corporate board and audit committee issues. We discuss the major insights from this literature and the practice implications of these findings. In addition, we identify a number of opportunities for future research. In particular, we make suggestions for: (1) improved research paradigms in corporate governance, (2) extensions of existing research, and (3) new or emerging lines of research.

scholarly journals Variability in the Results of Meta-Analysis as a Function of Comparing Effect Sizes Based on Scores From Noncomparable Measures: A Simulation Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Nugent
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Monte Carlo Study ◽  
Significant Degree ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Placebo Condition ◽  
Methodological Advance ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Observed Score

Meta-analysis is a significant methodological advance that is increasingly important in research synthesis. Fundamental to meta-analysis is the presumption that effect sizes, such as the standardized mean difference (SMD), based on scores from different measures are comparable. It has been argued that population observed score SMDs based on scores from different measures A and B will be equal only if the conjunction of three conditions are met: construct equivalence (CE), equal reliabilities (ER), and the absence of differential test functioning (DTF) in all subpopulations of the combined populations of interest. It has also been speculated the results of a meta-analysis of SMDs might differ between circumstances in which the SMDs included in a meta-analysis are based on measures which all met the conjunction of these conditions and that in which the conjunction of these conditions is violated. No previous studies have tested this conjecture. This Monte Carlo study investigated this hypothesis. A population of studies comparing one of five hypothetical treatments with a placebo condition was simulated. The SMDs in these simulated studies were based on true scores from six hypothetical measures. The scores from some of these measures met the conjunction of CE, ER, and, the absence of DTF, while others failed to meet CE. Three meta-analyses were conducted using both fixed effects and random effects methods. The results suggested that the results of meta-analyses can vary to a practically significant degree when the SMDs were based on scores from measures failing to meet the CE condition. Implications for future research are considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document