Self-Reported Limitations and Future Directions in Scholarly Reports

By S. Brutus, Herman Aguinis, Ulrich Wassmer. 2013

357 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Sentiment analysis in organizational work: Towards an ontology of people analytics (2018, background): “…are useful in assessing, for example, psychological attributes and states, caution is called for in interpreting their results, given certain known limitations (e.g., common method bias; see Brutus, Aguinis & Wassmer, 2013; Brutus, Gill & Duniewicz, 2010; Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012).”
Best-Practice Recommendations for Defining, Identifying, and Handling Outliers (2013, background): “So if the researcher decides to report respecified model(s), along with a discussion about their implications for theory building, we recommend that the discussion be elaborated in the ‘‘future research directions’’ section of the manuscript (Brutus et al., 2013).”
Quo Vadis, Dynamic Capabilities? A Content-Analytic Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Recommendations for Future Research (2018, methodology): “In coding limitations and suggestions related toempiricalmethods,we followed the taxonomy employed by Brutus et al. (2013), which maps the four general threats to validity (i.e., internal, external, construct, and statistical conclusion).”