Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta‐analysis: An assessment of published and nonpublished correlation matrices.

By D. Dalton, Herman Aguinis, Catherine M. Dalton, Frank Bosco, C. Pierce. 2012

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Decision Sciences, Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3d03a0a1e9f6aca15bc25d257771b118faaf48d9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Decision Sciences

1. Michael A. McDaniel
2. Jeremy C. Short
3. Herman Aguinis
4. Sven Kepes

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Herman Aguinis
2. Frank Bosco
3. C. Pierce
4. Sven Kepes
5. James G. Field
6. G. Banks
7. Ernest H. O’Boyle
8. Erik Gonzalez‐Mulé

In Statistics and Probability

1. Herman Aguinis
2. G. Banks
3. Erik Gonzalez‐Mulé
4. James G. Field
5. Frank Bosco
6. C. Pierce
7. Sven Kepes
8. Kulraj Singh

Citations in the corpus

• The Chrysalis Effect (2017, background): “For example, Dalton et al. (2012) found “that, contrary to the established belief, the file drawer problem is of little, if any, consequence for meta-analytically derived theoretical conclusions and applications in OBHRM, I-O psychology, and related fields” (p. 225).”
• Publication Bias in Strategic Management Research (2017, methodology): “The question is important because preliminary research suggests there is not a problem with publication bias in other behaviorally oriented business disciplines (i.e., OBHRM, I-O psychology; see Dalton et al., 2012) and some have argued that the problem is overstated (e.g., Rosenthal, 1984).”
• Correlational effect size benchmarks. (2015, methodology): “…however, that our analyses are based on the largest individual-level ES database in the field; although they included a wider range of journal sources, other similar content analyses have involved substantially smaller data sets (e.g., Aguinis et al., 2011; Dalton et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2011).”
• How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology? (2013, result): “We note that the Dalton et al. (2012) effort differed from all other published publication bias analyses in that did not examine any specific research topic in the literature (Kepes, McDaniel, Brannick, & Banks, 2013).”
• The stigma of affirmative action: : A stereotyping- based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. (2014, unknown): “Moreover, empirical evidence indicates that the file drawer problem has little impact on the validity of metaanalytic estimates (Dalton et al., 2012).”
• HARKing's Threat to Organizational Research: Evidence From Primary and Meta‐Analytic Sources (2016, unknown): “This is likely to be the case in spite of recent technological advancements and the recommendation that electronic searches involved in a meta-analysis rely on articles’ full text (Dalton et al., 2012), which often return more false positives than hits.”