IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v17y2023i2s1751157723000214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transparency of reporting practices in quantitative field studies: The transparency sweet spot for article citations

Author

Listed:
  • Weiss, Matthias
  • Nair, Lakshmi B.
  • Hoorani, Bareerah H.
  • Gibbert, Michael
  • Hoegl, Martin

Abstract

Intuitively, there would appear to be a direct positive link between the transparency with which research procedures get reported and their appreciation (and citation) within the academic community. It is therefore not surprising that several guidelines exist, which demand the reporting of specific features for ensuring transparency of quantitative field studies. Unfortunately, it is currently far from clear which of these features do get reported, and how this affects the articles’ citations. To rectify this, we review 200 quantitative field studies published in five major journals from the field of management research over a period of 20 years (1997–2016). Our results reveal that there are significant gaps in the transparent reporting of even the most basic features. On the other hand, our results show that copious reporting of transparency is productive only up to a certain degree, after which more transparent articles get cited less, pointing to a ‘transparency sweet spot’ that can be achieved by reporting mindfully.

Suggested Citation

  • Weiss, Matthias & Nair, Lakshmi B. & Hoorani, Bareerah H. & Gibbert, Michael & Hoegl, Martin, 2023. "Transparency of reporting practices in quantitative field studies: The transparency sweet spot for article citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:17:y:2023:i:2:s1751157723000214
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2023.101396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157723000214
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101396?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michelle Greenwood, 2016. "Approving or Improving Research Ethics in Management Journals," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 507-520, September.
    2. Michael Pirson & Deepak Malhotra, 2011. "Foundations of Organizational Trust: What Matters to Different Stakeholders?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1087-1104, August.
    3. Daniele Fanelli, 2013. "Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting," Nature, Nature, vol. 494(7436), pages 149-149, February.
    4. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    5. Douglas Frechtling & Soyoung Boo, 2012. "On the Ethics of Management Research: An Exploratory Investigation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(2), pages 149-160, March.
    6. Herman Aguinis & Wayne F. Cascio & Ravi S. Ramani, 2017. "Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(6), pages 653-663, August.
    7. Herman Aguinis & Angelo M. Solarino, 2019. "Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(8), pages 1291-1315, August.
    8. Zhang, Guangyao & Xu, Shenmeng & Sun, Yao & Jiang, Chunlin & Wang, Xianwen, 2022. "Understanding the peer review endeavor in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    9. Nick Haslam & Lauren Ban & Leah Kaufmann & Stephen Loughnan & Kim Peters & Jennifer Whelan & Sam Wilson, 2008. "What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(1), pages 169-185, July.
    10. Miguel, E & Camerer, C & Casey, K & Cohen, J & Esterling, KM & Gerber, A & Glennerster, R & Green, DP & Humphreys, M & Imbens, G & Laitin, D & Madon, T & Nelson, L & Nosek, BA & Petersen, M & Sedlmayr, 2014. "Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0wt4q2q8, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    11. Philip M. Podsakoff & Scott B. MacKenzie & Daniel G. Bachrach & Nathan P. Podsakoff, 2005. "The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 473-488, May.
    12. Linder, Christian & Farahbakhsh, Siavash, 2020. "Unfolding the Black Box of Questionable Research Practices: Where Is the Line Between Acceptable and Unacceptable Practices?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 335-360, July.
    13. Bareerah Hafeez Hoorani & Lakshmi Balachandran Nair & Michael Gibbert, 2019. "Designing for impact: the effect of rigor and case study design on citations of qualitative case studies in management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 285-306, October.
    14. Andreas I. Nicolaou & D. Harrison McKnight, 2006. "Perceived Information Quality in Data Exchanges: Effects on Risk, Trust, and Intention to Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 332-351, December.
    15. Alireza Tahai & Michael J. Meyer, 1999. "A revealed preference study of management journals’ direct influences," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 279-296, March.
    16. Eby, Lillian T. & Shockley, Kristen M. & Bauer, Talya N. & Edwards, Bryan & Homan, Astrid C. & Johnson, Russell & Lang, Jonas W. B. & Morris, Scott B. & Oswald, Frederick L., 2020. "Methodological checklists for improving research quality and reporting consistency," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 76-83, March.
    17. C. Chet Miller & Nathan T. Washburn & William H. Glick, 2013. "PERSPECTIVE—The Myth of Firm Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 948-964, June.
    18. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2019. "Do the best papers have the highest probability of being cited?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 885-890, March.
    19. Mao, Jin & Liang, Zhentao & Cao, Yujie & Li, Gang, 2020. "Quantifying cross-disciplinary knowledge flow from the perspective of content: Introducing an approach based on knowledge memes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    20. Hadas Shema & Judit Bar-Ilan & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Do blog citations correlate with a higher number of future citations? Research blogs as a potential source for alternative metrics," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(5), pages 1018-1027, May.
    21. Xie, Qing & Zhang, Xinyuan & Kim, Giyeong & Song, Min, 2022. "Exploring the influence of coauthorship with top scientists on researchers’ affiliation, research topic, productivity, and impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    22. Richard L. Daft & Arie Y. Lewin, 2008. "Perspective---Rigor and Relevance in Organization Studies: Idea Migration and Academic Journal Evolution," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 177-183, February.
    23. Ante, Lennart, 2022. "The relationship between readability and scientific impact: Evidence from emerging technology discourses," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    24. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    25. Michael J. Zyphur & Dean C. Pierides, 2020. "Statistics and Probability Have Always Been Value-Laden: An Historical Ontology of Quantitative Research Methods," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(1), pages 1-18, November.
    26. Cui, Haochuan & Zeng, An & Fan, Ying & Di, Zengru, 2021. "Quantifying the impact of a teamwork publication," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    27. Gregory B. Northcraft & Ann E. Tenbrunsel, 2011. "Effective Matrices, Decision Frames, and Cooperation in Volunteer Dilemmas: A Theoretical Perspective on Academic Peer Review," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1277-1285, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diaz Pranita & Sri Sarjana & Budiman Mahmud Musthofa & Hadining Kusumastuti & Mohamad Sattar Rasul, 2023. "Blockchain Technology to Enhance Integrated Blue Economy: A Case Study in Strengthening Sustainable Tourism on Smart Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bareerah Hafeez Hoorani & Lakshmi Balachandran Nair & Michael Gibbert, 2019. "Designing for impact: the effect of rigor and case study design on citations of qualitative case studies in management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 285-306, October.
    2. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2018. "Why highly cited articles are not highly tweeted? A biology case," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 495-509, October.
    3. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2016. "How to normalize Twitter counts? A first attempt based on journals in the Twitter Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1405-1422, June.
    4. Jianhua Hou & Xiucai Yang & Yang Zhang, 2023. "The effect of social media knowledge cascade: an analysis of scientific papers diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(9), pages 5169-5195, September.
    5. Ortega, José Luis, 2021. "How do media mention research papers? Structural analysis of blogs and news networks using citation coupling," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    6. Ortega, José Luis, 2018. "The life cycle of altmetric impact: A longitudinal study of six metrics from PlumX," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 579-589.
    7. Shahzad, Murtuza & Alhoori, Hamed & Freedman, Reva & Rahman, Shaikh Abdul, 2022. "Quantifying the online long-term interest in research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    8. Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2022. "Norms for Behavioral Change (NBC) model: How injunctive norms and enforcement shift descriptive norms in science," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    9. Bornmann, Lutz, 2014. "Do altmetrics point to the broader impact of research? An overview of benefits and disadvantages of altmetrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 895-903.
    10. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.
    11. Solanki Gupta & Vivek Kumar Singh & Sumit Kumar Banshal, 2024. "Altmetric data quality analysis using Benford’s law," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4597-4621, July.
    12. Kim, Jisun & Kim, Dong Ha & Lee, Jihyun & Cheon, Youngseo & Yoo, Seunghyun, 2022. "A scoping review of qualitative geographic information systems in studies addressing health issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    13. Mojisola Erdt & Aarthy Nagarajan & Sei-Ching Joanna Sin & Yin-Leng Theng, 2016. "Altmetrics: an analysis of the state-of-the-art in measuring research impact on social media," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 1117-1166, November.
    14. Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347, Center for Open Science.
    15. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2021. "Reproducibility and replicability crisis: How management compares to psychology and economics – A systematic review of literature," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 577-594.
    16. Joullié, Jean-Etienne & Gould, Anthony M., 2023. "One truth and one standard for its telling: Reporting on and about scientific business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    17. Xie, Qing & Wang, Jiamin & Kim, Giyeong & Lee, Soobin & Song, Min, 2021. "A sensitivity analysis of factors influential to the popularity of shared data in data repositories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    18. Domingo Docampo & Vicente Safón, 2021. "Journal ratings: a paper affiliation methodology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8063-8090, September.
    19. Salar Gholizadeh & Reza Mohammadkazemi, 2022. "International entrepreneurial opportunity: A systematic review, meta-synthesis, and future research agenda," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 218-254, June.
    20. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1123-1144, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:17:y:2023:i:2:s1751157723000214. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.