Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ADDRESSING COMMON METHOD BIAS, OPERATIONALIZATION, SAMPLING, AND DATA COLLECTION ISSUES IN QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Memon, Mumtaz Ali, Thurasamy, Ramayah, Cheah, Jun-Hwa, Ting, Hiram, Chuah, Francis, Cham, Tat Huei·2023·Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling
DOI 10.47263/jasem.7(2)01
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When editing regular and special issues of numerous journals, we have observed several recurring shortcomings in the manuscripts, particularly in relation to methodology. Many of these manuscripts are often found lacking in providing critical methodological information or justifying the use of the selected methods, thus resulting in desk rejection at the preliminary stage or major revision in the review process. Although the theoretical and managerial aspects of manuscripts are essential to publication consideration, methodological flaws can be detrimental. It is therefore of no surprise that failures to address methodological concerns are some of the common reasons for a manuscript to be rejected from publication, even after going through several rounds of revision. The purpose of this editorial is to provide clear guidelines on effectively reporting the methodological section in a quantitative manuscript in the fields of business and social sciences. Specifically, we present a set of recommendations on implementing and reporting operationalization, instrument validation, sampling techniques, questionnaire administration, and common method bias. Researchers, whether students or academics, should consider these guidelines to ensure methodological rigor in their research projects.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.47263/jasem.7(2)01

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 81

Metadata

Authors
Memon, M. A., Thurasamy, R., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H.
ORCID
Memon, Mumtaz Ali
Venue
Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling
Publisher
Sarawak Research Society
Published
2023-05-31
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
1-14
ISSN
2590-4221
DOI
10.47263/jasem.7(2)01
Cited by
81
References
75
Language
en

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

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.