Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T01:30:00.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enough Talk, It's Time to Transform: A Call for Editorial Leadership for a Robust Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2018

Sven Kepes ,
Sheila K. List  and
Michael A. McDaniel
Sven Kepes*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University
Sheila K. List
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University
Michael A. McDaniel
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Sven Kepes, Virginia Commonwealth University, 301 West Main Street, PO Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284. E-mail: skepes@vcu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The focal article (Grand et al., 2018) addresses one of the most important issues across virtually all areas of science (Goldstein, 2010): the trustworthiness and credibility of a scientific discipline. Once these attributes are lost, it is difficult to regain them within a reasonable time frame, if ever. In contrast to previous articles on this topic (e.g., Kepes & McDaniel, 2013), the authors of the focal article provide a detailed review of the stakeholders surrounding industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology, including their potential effect on the robustness and trustworthiness of our scientific discipline. In essence, the focal article describes I-O psychology's ecosystem responsible for fostering robust and credible science. The authors should be commended for their comprehensive undertaking, and we have no substantive disagreements. However, implicitly, as with most articles on this vital topic, the focal article tends to take a bottom-up approach to decision making and change. The bottom-up approach is an emergent process where the individuals involved in the day-to-day activities are primarily responsible for the decision-making process and resulting change (Kindler, 1979). Thus, changes resulting from this process are incremental and typically involve making minor adjustments to existing processes (Bartunek & Moch, 1987).

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 43 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 483–500. doi: 10.1177/002188638702300404 Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Wilmot, M. P. (2018). The functioning of theory in IWOP. In Ones, D. S., Anderson, N., Viswesvaran, C., & Kepir, H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of industrial, work, & organizational psychology: Volume 1, Personnel psychology and employee performance (2nd ed., pp. 3–38). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cucina, J. M., & McDaniel, M. A. (2016). Pseudotheory proliferation is damaging the organizational sciences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 1116–1125. doi: 10.1002/job.2117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, C., Drazen, J. M., Frizelle, F. A. P., Haug, C., Hoey, J., Horton, R., . . . Van der Weyden, M. B. (2004). Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 1250–1251. doi:10.1056/NEJMe048225 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derksen, M., & Rietzschel, E. F. (2013). Surveillance is not the answer, and replication is not a test: Comment on Kepes and McDaniel, “How trustworthy is the scientific literature in I–O psychology?” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 295–298. doi: 10.1111/iops.12053 Google Scholar
Dickersin, K., & Rennie, D. (2012). The evolution of trial registries and their use to assess the clinical trial enterprise. JAMA, 307, 1861–1864. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.4230 Google Scholar
Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, 891–904. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science's aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555–561. doi: 10.1177/1745691612459059 Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration. (2007). Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, 110–85, 21 U.S.C., § 801. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration.Google Scholar
Gabriel, A. S., & Wessel, J. L. (2013). A step too far? Why publishing raw datasets may hinder data collection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 287–290. doi: 10.1111/iops.12051 Google Scholar
Goldstein, D. (2010). On fact and fraud: Cautionary tales from the front lines of science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 921–955. doi: 10.2307/256535 Google Scholar
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., . . . Truxillo, D. M. (2018). A systems-based approach to fostering robust science in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11 (1), 4–42.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management's devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1348–1352. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.28166119 Google Scholar
Heyden, M. L. M., Fourné, S. P. L., Koene, B. A. S., Werkman, R., & Ansari, S. (2017). Rethinking “top-down” and “bottom-up” roles of top and middle managers in organizational change: Implications for employee support. Journal of Management Studies, 54, 961–985. doi: 10.1111/joms.12258 Google Scholar
Huy, Q., Corley, K., & Kraatz, M. (2014). From support to mutiny: Shifting legitimacy judgments and emotional reactions impacting the implementation of radical change. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1650–1680. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. W., & Dages, K. D. (2013). A new era of large-scale data sharing: A test publisher's perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 309–312. doi: 10.1111/iops.12057 Google Scholar
Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 252–268. doi: 10.1111/iops.12045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindler, H. S. (1979). Two planning strategies: Incremental change and transformational change. Group & Organization Studies, 4, 476–484.Google Scholar
Laine, C., Horton, R., DeAngelis, C. D., Drazen, J. M., Frizelle, F. A., Godlee, F., . . . Verheugt, F. W. A. (2007). Clinical trial registration—looking back and moving ahead. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 2734–2736. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe078110 Google Scholar
O'Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43, 376–399. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527133 Google Scholar
Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528–530. doi: 10.1177/1745691612465253 Google Scholar
Riley, W. J., Parsons, H. M., Duffy, G. L., Moran, J. W., & Henry, B. (2010). Realizing transformational change through quality improvement in public health. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 16, 72–78. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181c2c7e0 Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 Google Scholar
Scherer, M., & Trelle, S. (2008). Opinions on registering trial details: A survey of academic researchers. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 18. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-18 Google Scholar
Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30–34. doi: 10.2307/2282137 Google Scholar
Stetz, T. A., & Subramony, M. (2013). Research registries and trustworthiness of industrial–organizational psychological research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 302–305. doi: 10.1111/iops.12055 Google Scholar
Wicherts, J. M. (2011). Psychology must learn a lesson from fraud case. Nature, 480, 7. doi: 10.1038/480007a Google Scholar
Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M., & Molenaar, D. (2011). Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS One, 6, e26828. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0026828 Google Scholar
Zarin, D. A., Tse, T., Williams, R. J., & Carr, S. (2016). Trial reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov: The final rule. New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 1998–2004. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1611785 Google Scholar