Notes from the Editors: Redefining some methodological criteria for the journal ☆
By V. Daniel R. Guide Jr., Mikko Ketokivi. 2015
482 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Management Information Systems, Management Science and Operations Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/33a7d438146eb6f150f7fd6ba9c292542e75665b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Management Information Systems
- Marko Sarstedt
- Christian M. Ringle
- Angappa Gunasekaran
- Joseph F. Hair
- Rameshwar Dubey
- Stephen J. Childe
- Thanos Papadopoulos
- John Antonakis
In Management Science and Operations Research
- Marko Sarstedt
- Christian M. Ringle
- Joseph F. Hair
- John Antonakis
- Mikko Rönkkö
- Jun-Hwa (Jacky) Cheah
- Thurasamy Ramayah
- Hiram Ting
Citations in the corpus
- Big data analytics capability in supply chain agility (2019, background): “Guide and Ketokivi (2015) noted that causality is an important issue that should be examined prior to hypothesis testing.”
- Dealing with endogeneity bias: The generalized method of moments (GMM) for panel data (2018, background): “Returning to the main focus of this study, a series of techniques to deal with endogeneity are succinctly provided by researchers (Guide & Ketokivi, 2015; Ketokivi & McIntosh, 2017; Zaefarian et al., 2017).”
- Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research (2019, methodology): “…that many widely used “rules of thumb” and cutoff criteria have been dismissed in the methods literature as “methodological myths” (Lance & Vandenberg, 2009), such as the false notion that a measure is internally consistent when Cronbach’s α exceeds .70 (Guide & Ketokivi, 2015; McNeish, 2018).”
- Big Data and Predictive Analytics and Manufacturing Performance: Integrating Institutional Theory, Resource‐Based View and Big Data Culture (2019, methodology): “Secondly, as with any survey-based research, our study has its own limitations such as CMB or endogeneity (Guide and Ketokivi, 2015).”
- A review of the methodological misconceptions and guidelines related to the application of structural equation modeling: A Malaysian scenario (2017, background): “Although what was published and adopted in the past can still be of use today, dwelling on it in the expense of what is current and recommended certainly has no place in the rigor of research in any form (Guide & Ketokivi, 2015).”
- Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting (2020, methodology): “Following Guide and Ketokivi (2015)’s arguments, we tested for endogeneity by conducting the Durbin–Wu–Hausman test (see Davidson and MacKinnon 1993).”
- Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! ☆ (2016, background): “This new harshness climaxed in an editorial from the editors in chief of the Journal of Operations Management (Guide & Ketokivi, 2015, p. vii) who declared that theywere “desk rejecting practically all PLS-basedmanuscripts.””
- Whistleblowing Intentions Among Public Accountants in Indonesia: Testing for the Moderation Effects (2016, methodology): “13 PLS-SEM is a modeling approach is wrong if without justification proper use (Guide & Ketokivi 2015).”