Discussion: View Thread

Dear ENTR Colleagues,

Many of us are familiar with the current debate about the reproducibility and credibility of our research. While many believe there is a problem, there is less clarity about what to do next. We are delighted to share the following article offering some modest yet actionable proposals. Most certainly, our intention is NOT to point fingers or assign blame (in fact, after writing this article we quickly realized that we have not been sufficiently transparent in our own research). Rather, we are offering some recommendations for authors as well as journal editors and reviewers that we hope will lead to a continued conversation about how to address the challenges we are facing:

·       Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. in press. What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals. doi: 10.5465/annals.2016.0011

The article is available at http://hermanaguinis.com/pubs.html and the Abstract is below. We look forward to fruitful exchanges regarding these important challenges!

All the best,

--Herman.

Abstract

We review the literature on evidence-based best practices on how to enhance methodological transparency, which is the degree of detail and disclosure about the specific steps, decisions, and judgment calls made during a scientific study. We conceptualize lack of transparency as a "research performance problem" because it masks fraudulent acts, serious errors, and questionable research practices, and therefore precludes inferential and results reproducibility. Our recommendations for authors provide guidance on how to increase transparency at each stage of the research process: (1) theory, (2) design, (3) measurement, (4) analysis, and (5) reporting of results. We also offer recommendations for journal editors, reviewers, and publishers on how to motivate authors to be more transparent. We group these recommendations into the following categories: (1) manuscript submission forms requiring authors to certify they have taken actions to enhance transparency, (2) manuscript evaluation forms including additional items to encourage reviewers to assess the degree of transparency, and (3) review process improvements to enhance transparency. Taken together, our recommendations provide a resource for doctoral education and training; researchers conducting empirical studies; journal editors and reviewers evaluating submissions; and journals, publishers, and professional organizations interested in enhancing the credibility and trustworthiness of research.

Herman Aguinis, Ph.D.

Avram Tucker Distinguished Scholar and Professor of Management

George Washington University School of Business

2201 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

http://hermanaguinis.com/