Customer-Centric Science: Reporting Significant Research Results With Rigor, Relevance, and Practical Impact in Mind

By Herman Aguinis, Steve Werner, JéAnna Lanza Abbott, C. Angert, Joon Hyung Park, D. Kohlhausen. 2010

233 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Information Systems, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9f86f88b3a29ced761d63c2d9ea74d2d7e2ca154

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

In Sociology and Political Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

From the editors: New directions in the reporting of statistical results in the Journal of World Business (2017, methodology): “As such, reporting only whether a threshold has been reached (often designated with an asterisk such as * for p 0.05) results in a loss of information (Aguinis et al., 2010).”
Correlational effect size benchmarks. (2015, methodology): “Although obtained effect sizes feed estimates of practical significance, information on effect sizes alone does not suffice in terms of communicating a study’s impact on practice (Aguinis et al., 2010; Brooks et al., 2014).”
Best-Practice Recommendations for Defining, Identifying, and Handling Outliers (2013, unknown): “This recommendation is consistent with a customer-centric approach to reporting scientific results (Aguinis et al., 2010).”
Determining the Relative Importance of Predictors in Logistic Regression: An Extension of Relative Weight Analysis (2010, background): “Aguinis et al. (2010) describe a three-step process of determining importance that addresses each of these issues.”
HARKing's Threat to Organizational Research: Evidence From Primary and Meta‐Analytic Sources (2016, unknown): “In addition, HARKing can lead to less-than-ideal management practices because effect size estimates are the central input to estimates of practical significance (Aguinis et al., 2010; Bosco et al., 2015).”
Relative Importance Analysis: A Useful Supplement to Regression Analysis (2011, background): “Numerous authors (e.g., Aguinis et al. 2010; Cortina and Landis 2009; Martell et al. 1996) continue to stress that the sheer magnitude of an effect is not really meaningful out of context.”
A Road Well Traveled: The Past, Present, and Future Journey of Strategic Human Resource Management (2017, background): “Although this effect size is interesting, several researchers have called for a better explanation of what these effect sizes mean (Aguinis et al. 2010).”
HARKing: How Badly Can Cherry-Picking and Question Trolling Produce Bias in Published Results? (2019, background): “However, the implications of our results regarding the damaging effects of HARKing for theory as well as practice necessitate that we place results within specific fields and research domains because in many cases, Bsmall^ effects make a big difference (Aguinis et al., 2010; Cortina & Landis, 2009).”
The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management (2013, background): “Although an asymptotic relation is a smaller effect compared with a U-shaped relation, this does not mean that an asymptotic relation is necessarily less important for science and practice (Aguinis et al., 2010; Cortina & Landis, 2009).”