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) meta-analyses published between 1995 and 2008 in 11 top journals that publish meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology and organizational behavior. The authors extracted information on 54 features of each meta-analysis. On average, the meta-analyses in the sample provided 52.8% of the information needed to replicate the meta-analysis or to assess its validity and 67.6% of the information considered to be most important according to expert meta-analysts. More recently published meta-analyses exhibited somewhat more transparent reporting practices than older ones did. Overall transparency of reporting (but not reporting of the most important items) was associated with higher ranked journals; transparency was not significantly related to number of citations. The authors discuss the implications of inadequate reporting of meta-analyses for development of cumulative knowledge and effective practice and make suggestions for improving the current state of affairs.Keywords meta-analysis, quantitative research, missing dataAs the amount of research in a field increases, the need to integrate the findings increases in tandem. Over the past 30 years, systematic review and meta-analysis have moved from being somewhat controversial to generally being a preferred way of integrating research findings in many scientific disciplines (Cooper, 2009;Hunt, 1997;Wanous, Sullivan, & Malinak, 1989). Evidence of the growing dependence on meta-analysis to summarize research literatures comes in at least two forms: the increase in the number of meta-analyses published and the increase in the number of citations of meta-analyses over time. Guzzo, Jackson, and Katzell (1987) charted journal articles and dissertations appearing in Psychological Abstracts between 1977 and 1985 that used or commented on,

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose-In this study of Korean and U.S. negotiators, we demonstrate limits on the presumption that inter-cultural negotiations are doomed to generate low joint gains. Design/methodology/approach-In a laboratory study with 45 bi-cultural Korean students and 47 mono-cultural American students, we created a total of 16 U.S.-U.S., 15 Korean-Korean, and 15 U.S.-Korean dyads. We audio-recorded their negotiation conversations and analyzed the content of the negotiation transcripts. We focused on the use of pronouns and coded how they were used and the impact this use had on the outcomes of the intra-and inter-cultural negotiations. Findings-Results show that inter-cultural dyads generate higher joint gains than Korean or U.S. intra-cultural dyads. The explanation based on social awareness and social distance theorizing shows that inter-cultural negotiators, one of whom is bi-cultural, who use language, especially the pronoun-you‖ to close social distance, achieve higher joint gains than intracultural negotiators who do not. Research limitations/implications-We conclude that the language people use in social interaction, especially pronouns, is an indicator of social awareness and signals attempts to close social distance. Originality/value-This research demonstrates that the way negotiators use language predicts their economic outcomes.

No abstract