Cited by 63Psychology Research and BibliometricsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPublishing and Scholarly Communication

When is nothing something? Editorial for the null results special issue of Journal of Business and Psychology

Open access
Landis, Ronald S., James, Lawrence R., Lance, Charles E., Pierce, Charles A., Rogelberg, Steven G.·2014·Journal of Business and Psychology

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10869-014-9347-8

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Publishing nonsignificant findings is important for identifying boundary conditions of established effects and informing future research.

    “The publication of nonsignificant findings is important to identify boundary conditions for established effects and to inform future research (Landis et al., 2014) and the value of nonsignificant results should be discussed in discussion sections as a way to advance scientific practice.”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Processes and Mediation: Challenges and How to Address Them (2023) · cites this paper as Landis et al., 2014

    In “Why Encourage Publication of Null Results?” the editorial says null findings can inform the usefulness or validity of a theory, and its Conclusions say such findings inform the field. It does not specifically say that publishing them identifies boundary conditions for established effects; that is a more specific claim than the passages support. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Landis, R. S., James, L. R., Lance, C. E., Pierce, C. A., & Rogelberg, S. G.
Affiliations
  • Illinois Institute of Technology (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of Memphis (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Corresponding author
Landis, Ronald S.
Venue
Journal of Business and Psychology
Published
2014-02-25
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
163-167
ISSN
  • 0889-3268 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-353X
OpenAlex
W2153353925
Cited by
63
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Business and Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
negative results, research evaluation, peer review, editorial practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review