Guidance on conducting and reviewing systematic reviews (and meta-analyses) in work and organizational psychology

ABSTRACT

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are means of summarizing and synthesizing research evidence in a given topic area. They can be used to define the current state of knowledge and how confident we can be in that knowledge, to identify evidence gaps, and to provide recommendations for policy and practice based on the best available evidence. At European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, our editorial stance is explicitly to encourage the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The purpose of this editorial is to provide some guidance to authors and journal referees on the (technical) features of good systematic reviews.

KEYWORDS:

• Systematic review methods
• work and organizational psychology
• evidence-based decision-making

Acknowledgments

For feedback on earlier drafts, I am very grateful to Sara Connolly, Cigdem Gedikli, James Rumbold, Olga Tregaskis and David Watson.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. There exist other sources on the technical aspects of meta-analyses, e.g., Cooper (2010) and Field and Gillett (2010).

2. Of course, no single systematic review is perfect either, but systematic reviews, if conducted well, will be less imperfect than the primary studies they are based on.

3. It cannot be assumed that those with skill in conducting primary research or systematic review methods also possess the skills, other resources or motivation to translate for non-scientific audiences, and being able to translate research into a form useful and appealing to users may require a range of skills and knowledge beyond pedagogy and being able to write in non-technical language. Such skills and knowledge can include graphic design, animation, film making.