Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:48:49.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using results-blind reviewing to support the peer review competency framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2020

Liana Kreamer  and
Steven G. Rogelberg
Liana Kreamer*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Steven G. Rogelberg
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 28 - 31
Copyright
© Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonakis, J. (2017). On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, T., & Ford, J. (1988). Transfer of training: A preview and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, G. C., Field, J. G., Oswald, F. L., O’Boyle, E. H., Landis, R. S., Rupp, D. E., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2019). Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Business & Psychology, 31(3), 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blume, B., Ford, J., Baldwin, T., & Huang, J. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36(4), 1065–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, K. S., Bal, L., Clark, A., & Shipley, T. (2016). Preventing the ends from justifying the means: Withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colquitt, J., Lepine, J., & Noe, R. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coursol, A., & Wagner, E. (1986). Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17(2), 136–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalal, R., Alaybek, B., Sheng, Z., Holland, S., & Tomassetti, A. (In press). Extending situational strength theory to account for situation-outcome mismatch. Journal of Business and Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10869-019-09632-zGoogle Scholar
Emerson, G. B., Warme, W. J., Wolf, F. M., Heckman, J. D., Brand, R. A., & Leopold, S. S. (2010). Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(21), 1934–1939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of ‘blind’ auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4), 715–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, J., Rogelberg, S., Allen, T., Landis, R., Reynolds, D., Scott, J., … Truxillo, D. (2018). A systems-based approach to fostering robust science in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(1), 4–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., ... Gulick, L. M. V. (2020). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Aguinis, H. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in published results? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Boyle, E., Banks, G. C., Carter, K., Walter, S., & Yuan, Z. (2019). A 20-year review of outcome reporting bias in moderated multiple regression. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Boyle, E., Banks, G., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The Chrysalis Effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woznyj, H., Grenier, K., Ross, R., Banks, G., & Rogelberg, S. (2018). Results-blind review: A masked crusader for science. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 561–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar