Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methodology for Dealing With Duplicate Study Effects in a Meta-Analysis

Wood, John 'Andy'·2008·Organizational Research Methods

Abstract

Study effects developed from the same data set and duplicated in more than one publication likely will bias the aggregated effects in a meta-analysis. This threat to the validity of meta-analyses in organizational research is significant. Methods of detecting overt and covert duplication of publication are presented through an analysis of five published meta-analyses. An unpublished meta-analysis of salesperson turnover is used to present the implications of nonindependence. Options for the correction of duplication are discussed. It is recommended that study effects gathered during the literature search use the proposed screening heuristic to detect and address duplicate study effects.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/1094428106296638

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Wood, J. '.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Published
2007-07-23
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
79-95
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
OpenAlex
W2123358705
Cited by
264
References
17
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methodology for Dealing With Duplicate Study Effects in a Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428106296638
The paper
Wood, J. '. (2008). Methodology for Dealing With Duplicate Study Effects in a Meta-Analysis. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296638

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.