Tests for Identifying “Red Flags” in Empirical Findings: Demonstration and Recommendations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors
Tests for Identifying “Red Flags” in Empirical Findings: Demonstration and Recommendations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors
复制标题
识别实证结果中“危险信号”的测试：为作者、审稿人和编辑提供演示和建议
DOI：
10.5465/amle.2015.0406
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Ming Li
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Bergh;Barton M. Sharp;Ming Li
高调的文章撤回，调查结果表明伪造的数据，以及错误的发现证据引起了人们的关注，有问题的实证研究已经进入管理领域的文献。为了帮助保护该领域免受这种变幻莫测的影响，我们描述了三个测试，可以应用于大多数实证文章，以评估报告结果的准确性。使用撤回的文章作为一个例子，我们还演示了如何测试发现报告异常。结果发现了许多违规行为，如果在审查期间对该文章进行测试，这些违规行为可能会引起“危险信号”。我们为作者、审稿人和期刊编辑提供建议，以帮助保护管理研究的可信度。
High-profile article retractions, survey results indicating falsification of data, and evidence of mistaken findings raise concerns that problematic empirical research has found its way into the management field’s literatures. To help safeguard the field against such vagaries, we describe three tests that can be applied to most empirical articles to assess the accuracy of the reported findings. Using a retracted article as an example, we also demonstrate how the tests uncover reporting anomalies. The results identify numerous irregularities which would have raised “red flags” had the tests been applied to the article while it was under review. We offer recommendations to authors, reviewers, and journal editors to help protect the trustworthiness of management research.