How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology?

  title={How Trustworthy Is the Scientific Literature in Industrial and Organizational Psychology?},
  author={Sven Kepes and Michael A. McDaniel},
  journal={Industrial and Organizational Psychology},
  pages={252 - 268}
The trustworthiness of research findings has been questioned in many domains of science. This article calls for a review of the trustworthiness of the scientific literature in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology and a reconsideration of common practices that may harm the credibility of our literature. We note that most hypotheses in I–O psychology journals are confirmed. Thus, we are either approaching omniscience or our journals are publishing an unrepresentative sample of completed… 

Let's Be Honest: Evidence for Why Industrial–Organizational Psychology Research Is Trustworthy

The implicit assumption in the focal article by Kepes and McDaniel (2013) is that the research in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology may not be trustworthy. Although we acknowledge that the

A Systems-Based Approach to Fostering Robust Science in Industrial-Organizational Psychology

Credibility and trustworthiness are the bedrock upon which any science is built. The strength of these foundations has been increasingly questioned across the sciences as instances of research

Our Scholarly Practices Are Derailing Our Progress: The Importance of “Nothing” in the Organizational Sciences

A recurrent theme in the history of industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology has been to (re)evaluate the vitality, importance (Cascio, 1995), and identity of the field (Ryan & Ford, 2010). We

p-Hacking as a Questionable Research Practice in Industrial and Organizational Psychology

In light of the pandemic context, more and more people, both specialists and researchers, as well as people interested in accurate and up-to-date information, turn to the scientific literature for

Why We Need Industrial–Organizational Psychology to Fix Industrial–Organizational Psychology

Kepes and McDaniel (2013) discuss two biases that inflate the predictive accuracy of the published literature: study suppression (i.e., sample-level publication bias) and outcome-reporting bias (ORB;

Pseudotheory proliferation is damaging the organizational sciences

Summary In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on the role of theory in organizational behavior (OB) research. Authors are strongly encouraged to develop “theory” in their

Research Registries and Trustworthiness of Industrial–Organizational Psychological Research

We believe that Kepes and McDaniel (2013) are highly accurate in their assessment of the current state of publishing practices in industrial and organizational (I–O) psychology research, and they

The Causes and Consequences of a Scientific Literature We Cannot Trust: An Evidence-Based Practice Perspective

Kepes and McDaniel (2013) have provided us with a valuable and challenging overview of some of the poor scientific practices that have become institutionalized within industrial and organizational

Results-blind review: a masked crusader for science

ABSTRACT The organizational sciences are entering a confidence crisis where a growing number of scholars recognize our science is imperfect and our knowledge base is potentially flawed. One

Forgetting What We Learned as Graduate Students: HARKing and Selective Outcome Reporting in I–O Journal Articles

With an overarching concern on how trustworthy and accurate the accumulated scientific knowledge is in industrial– organizational (I–O) psychology research, Kepes and McDaniel (2013) discuss how



Publication Bias:A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences

Previous research has introduced the threat of publication bias to meta-analytic reviews in management and industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology research. However, a comprehensive review of

Meta-analytic Reviews in the Organizational Sciences: Two Meta-analytic Schools on the Way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards)

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to review the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS) of the American Psychological Association (APA) and highlight opportunities for improvement of


This article has 2 goals. First, we discuss publication bias and explain why it presents a potential problem for industrial and organizational psychology. After reviewing the traditional failsafe N,

“Positive” Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences

These results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.

Revealed or Concealed? Transparency of Procedures, Decisions, and Judgment Calls in Meta-Analyses

The authors examined the degree to which meta-analyses in the organizational sciences transparently report procedures, decisions, and judgment calls by systematically reviewing all (198)


Many nice things can be said about theory. Theories help us organize our thoughts, generate coherent explanations, and improve our predictions. In short, theories help us achieve understanding. But

Editor's Comments: The Better Angels of our Nature—Ethics and Integrity in the Publishing Process

Our profession has no formal audit function. More precisely, our research and publishing activities are not monitored by a formal audit process. Rather, our work rests on a foundation of individual

Publication Bias in the Organizational Sciences

Publication bias poses multiple threats to the accuracy of meta-analytically derived effect sizes and related statistics. Unfortunately, a review of the literature indicates that unlike meta-analytic

Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

The hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias is verified, which might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.

Reporting standards for research in psychology: why do we need them? What might they be?

The resulting recommendations contain standards for all journal articles, and more specific standards for reports of studies with experimental manipulations or evaluations of interventions using research designs involving random or nonrandom assignment.