IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jintbs/v48y2017i5d10.1057_s41267-017-0078-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus E Meyer

    (China Europe International Business School)

  • Arjen Witteloostuijn

    (Tilburg University
    University of Antwerp
    Cardiff University)

  • Sjoerd Beugelsdijk

    (University of Groningen)

Abstract

Social science research has recently been subject to considerable criticism regarding the validity and power of empirical tests published in leading journals, and business scholarship is no exception. Transparency and replicability of empirical findings are essential to build a cumulative body of scholarly knowledge. Yet current practices are under increased scrutiny to achieve these objectives. JIBS is therefore discussing and revising its editorial practices to enhance the validity of empirical research. In this editorial, we reflect on best practices with respect to conducting, reporting, and discussing the results of quantitative hypothesis-testing research, and we develop guidelines for authors to enhance the rigor of their empirical work. This will not only help readers to assess empirical evidence comprehensively, but also enable subsequent research to build a cumulative body of empirical knowledge.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus E Meyer & Arjen Witteloostuijn & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk, 2017. "What’s in a p? Reassessing best practices for conducting and reporting hypothesis-testing research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(5), pages 535-551, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:jintbs:v:48:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1057_s41267-017-0078-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41267-017-0078-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41267-017-0078-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41267-017-0078-8?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. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 1996. "The Standard Error of Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 97-114, March.
    2. Richard A. Bettis & Sendil Ethiraj & Alfonso Gambardella & Constance Helfat & Will Mitchell, 2016. "Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 257-261, February.
    3. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    4. Joshua D. Angrist & Alan B. Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 69-85, Fall.
    5. Mark F Peterson & Jean-Luc Arregle & Xavier Martin, 2012. "Multilevel models in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 43(5), pages 451-457, June.
    6. Bryan W Husted & Ivan Montiel & Petra Christmann, 2016. "Effects of local legitimacy on certification decisions to global and national CSR standards by multinational subsidiaries and domestic firms," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 47(3), pages 382-397, April.
    7. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    8. Peter J Buckley & Timothy M Devinney & Jordan J Louviere, 2007. "Do managers behave the way theory suggests? A choice-theoretic examination of foreign direct investment location decision-making," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 38(7), pages 1069-1094, December.
    9. Margarethe F. Wiersema & Harry P. Bowen, 2009. "The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: issues and methods," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 679-692, June.
    10. John Antonakis & Samuel Bendahan & Philippe Jacquart & Rafael Lalive, 2010. "On making causal claims : A review and recommendations," Post-Print hal-02313119, HAL.
    11. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    12. David Reeb & Mariko Sakakibara & Ishtiaq P Mahmood, 2012. "From the Editors: Endogeneity in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 43(3), pages 211-218, April.
    13. McCloskey, Donald N, 1985. "The Loss Function Has Been Mislaid: The Rhetoric of Significance Tests," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 201-205, May.
    14. Klaus Meyer, 2009. "Erratum: Motivating, testing, and publishing curvilinear effects in management research," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 195-195, June.
    15. Greene, William, 2010. "Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 291-296, May.
    16. Kingsley, Allison F. & Noordewier, Thomas G. & Vanden Bergh, Richard G., 2017. "Overstating and understating interaction results in international business research," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 286-295.
    17. Jeongho Choi & Farok J Contractor, 2016. "Choosing an appropriate alliance governance mode: The role of institutional, cultural and geographical distance in international research & development (R&D) collaborations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 47(2), pages 210-232, February.
    18. Richard F. J. Haans & Constant Pieters & Zi-Lin He, 2016. "Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1177-1195, July.
    19. Holger Görg & Eric Strobl, 2016. "Multinational Companies And Productivity Spillovers: A Meta-Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES AND HOST COUNTRY DEVELOPMENT Volume 53: World Scientific Studies in International Economics, chapter 8, pages 145-161, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    20. Bennet A. Zelner, 2009. "Using simulation to interpret results from logit, probit, and other nonlinear models," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(12), pages 1335-1348, December.
    21. repec:fth:prinin:455 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Sala-i-Martin, Xavier, 1997. "I Just Ran Two Million Regressions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(2), pages 178-183, May.
    23. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P. & Nickerson, David, 2001. "Testing for Publication Bias in Political Science," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 385-392, January.
    24. Lewin, Arie Y. & Chiu, Chi-Yue & Fey, Carl F. & Levine, Sheen S. & McDermott, Gerald & Murmann, Johan Peter & Tsang, Eric, 2016. "The Critique of Empirical Social Science: New Policies at Management and Organization Review," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 649-658, December.
    25. Brambor, Thomas & Clark, William Roberts & Golder, Matt, 2006. "Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 63-82, January.
    26. Joseph Henrich & Steve J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "The Weirdest People in the World?," RatSWD Working Papers 139, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    27. Jose M Cortina & Tine Köhler & Bo Bernhard Nielsen, 2015. "Restriction of variance interaction effects and their importance for international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 46(8), pages 879-885, October.
    28. Klaus Meyer, 2009. "Motivating, testing, and publishing curvilinear effects in management research," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 187-193, June.
    29. Mary Zellmer-Bruhn & Paula Caligiuri & David C Thomas, 2016. "From the Editors: Experimental designs in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 47(4), pages 399-407, May.
    30. Joshua Angrist & Alan Krueger, 2001. "Instrumental Variables and the Search for Identification: From Supply and Demand to Natural Experiments," Working Papers 834, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    31. Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd & Slangen, Arjen & Maseland, Robbert & Onrust, Marjolijn, 2014. "The impact of home–host cultural distance on foreign affiliate sales: The moderating role of cultural variation within host countries," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1638-1646.
    32. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Brent Goldfarb & Andrew A. King, 2016. "Scientific apophenia in strategic management research: Significance tests & mistaken inference," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 167-176, January.
    33. Leamer, Edward E, 1985. "Sensitivity Analyses Would Help," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 308-313, June.
    34. Ulf Andersson & Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra & Bo Bernhard Nielsen, 2014. "From the Editors: Explaining interaction effects within and across levels of analysis," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 45(9), pages 1063-1071, December.
    35. Megan L Head & Luke Holman & Rob Lanfear & Andrew T Kahn & Michael D Jennions, 2015. "The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    36. Richard Williams, 2012. "Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(2), pages 308-331, June.
    37. Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Henri L.F. de Groot & Anton B.T.M. van Schaik, 2004. "Trust and economic growth: a robustness analysis," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(1), pages 118-134, January.
    38. Glenn Hoetker, 2007. "The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(4), pages 331-343, April.
    39. Chris Doucouliagos & T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Are All Economic Facts Greatly Exaggerated? Theory Competition And Selectivity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 316-339, April.
    40. Richard A. Bettis, 2012. "The search for asterisks: Compromised statistical tests and flawed theories," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 108-113, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    2. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    3. Anderson, Brian S, 2018. "Endogeneity and Entrepreneurship Research," OSF Preprints 75tn8, Center for Open Science.
    4. Anderson, Brian S. & Wennberg, Karl & McMullen, Jeffery S., 2019. "Editorial: Enhancing quantitative theory-testing entrepreneurship research," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1-1.
    5. Wennberg, Karl & Anderson, Brian S. & McMullen, Jeffrey, 2019. "2 Editorial: Enhancing Quantitative Theory-Testing Entrepreneurship Research," Ratio Working Papers 323, The Ratio Institute.
    6. Christian Schwens & Florian B Zapkau & Keith D Brouthers & Lina Hollender, 2018. "Limits to international entry mode learning in SMEs," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 49(7), pages 809-831, September.
    7. Bai, Xiaoou & Tsang, Eric W.K. & Xia, Wei, 2020. "Domestic versus foreign listing: Does a CEO's educational experience matter?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(1).
    8. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Bruns, Stephan B. & Asanov, Igor & Bode, Rasmus & Dunger, Melanie & Funk, Christoph & Hassan, Sherif M. & Hauschildt, Julia & Heinisch, Dominik & Kempa, Karol & König, Johannes & Lips, Johannes & Verb, 2019. "Reporting errors and biases in published empirical findings: Evidence from innovation research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    11. Niclas Berggren & Mikael Elinder & Henrik Jordahl, 2008. "Trust and growth: a shaky relationship," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 251-274, September.
    12. Abel Brodeur & Nikolai Cook & Anthony Heyes, 2020. "Methods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3634-3660, November.
    13. Stephen A. Gorman & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2021. "The ABC’s of the alternative risk premium: academic roots," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(6), pages 405-436, October.
    14. Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra & Ulf Andersson & Mary Yoko Brannen & Bo Bernhard Nielsen & A. Rebecca Reuber, 2016. "From the Editors: Can I trust your findings? Ruling out alternative explanations in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 47(8), pages 881-897, October.
    15. Nielsen, Bo Bernhard & Raswant, Arpit, 2018. "The selection, use, and reporting of control variables in international business research: A review and recommendations," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 958-968.
    16. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2018. "Methods Matter: P-Hacking and Causal Inference in Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 11796, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Stephan B. Bruns, 2013. "Identifying Genuine Effects in Observational Research by Means of Meta-Regressions," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-040, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Venkateswaran, Ramya Tarakad & George, Rejie, 2020. "When does culture matter? A multilevel study on the role of situational moderators," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 99-122.
    19. Cristina Blanco-Perez & Abel Brodeur, 2020. "Publication Bias and Editorial Statement on Negative Findings," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(629), pages 1226-1247.
    20. Garret Christensen & Edward Miguel, 2018. "Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 920-980, September.

    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:pal:jintbs:v:48:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1057_s41267-017-0078-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.