The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Publication Bias in the Organizational Sciences
Abstract
Publication bias poses multiple threats to the accuracy of meta-analytically derived effect sizes and related statistics. Unfortunately, a review of the literature indicates that unlike meta-analytic reviews in medicine, research in the organizational sciences tends to pay little attention to this issue. In this article, the authors introduce advances in meta-analytic techniques from the medical and related sciences for a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of publication bias. The authors illustrate their use on a data set on employment interview validities. Using multiple methods, including contour-enhanced funnel plots, trim and fill, Egger’s test of the intercept, Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation, meta-regression, cumulative meta-analysis, and selection models, the authors find limited evidence of publication bias in the studied data.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Missing data: our view of the state of the art
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147 · Cited by 11,638
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103 · cited 1×
“Our recommendation for the use of multiple publication bias methods is aligned with the concept of triangulation, which refers to the use of ‘‘multiple reference points to locate an object’s exact position’’ (Jick, 1979, p. 602; see also, e.g., Sackett & Larson, 1990; Scandura & Williams, 2000).”
MethodMethods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Cited by
Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315575554 · Cited by 2,354
Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12102 · Cited by 995
The relationship between professional burnout and quality and safety in healthcare: a meta-analysis
Salyers, M. P., Bonfils, K. A., Luther, L., Firmin, R. L., White, D. A., Adams, E. L., & Rollins, A. L. (2017) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3886-9 · Cited by 843
A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034531 · Cited by 731
Abusive supervision: A meta-analysis and empirical review
Mackey, J. D., Frieder, R. E., Brees, J. R., & Martinko, M. J. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315573997 · Cited by 706
Metadata
- Authors
- Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-07-31
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 624-662
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2098274145
- Cited by
- 398
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 18.75
- 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: Publication Bias in the Organizational Sciences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428112452760
- The paper
- Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication Bias in the Organizational Sciences. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452760
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.
