Assessing the robustness of meta-analytic results in information systems: publication bias and outliers

References

• Ada, S., Sharman, R., & Balkundi, P. (2012). Impact of meta-analytic decisions on the conclusions drawn on the business value of information technology. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 521–533.10.1016/j.dss.2012.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.10.1111/crim.1992.30.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminology, 30(4), 475–500.10.1111/crim.1992.30.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management, 37(1), 5–38.10.1177/0149206310377113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Abbott, J. L., Angert, C., Park, J. H., & Kohlhausen, D. (2010). Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 515–539.10.1177/1094428109333339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63(9), 839–851.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aytug, Z. G., Rothstein, H. R., Zhou, W., & Kern, M. C. (2012). Revealed or concealed? Transparency of procedures, decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 103–133.10.1177/1094428111403495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & Banks, K. P. (2012a). Publication bias: The antagonist of meta-analytic reviews and effective policy making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 259–277.10.3102/0162373712446144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012b). Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(2), 182–196.10.1111/ijsa.2012.20.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). Publication bias: Understanding the myths concerning threats to the advancement of science. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Ed.), More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 36–64). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidence-based I–O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4(1), 40–44.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01292.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14.10.2307/4132338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, B. J. (1994). Combining significance levels. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Ed.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 215–230). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, B. J. (2005). The failsafe N or file-drawer number. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Ed.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 111–126). West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 715–725.10.5465/AMLE.2010.56659889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belluz, J. (2015) Why one science journal wants to publish negative studies. Vox. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from http://www.vox.com/2015/2/27/8119957/publication-bias
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, A. J., Kepes, S., & Bushman, B. J. (in press) Effects of weapons on aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, hostile appraisals, and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the weapons effect literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.10.1002/9780470743386
   Google Scholar
• Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I–O psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4(1), 3–22.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01287.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers, L. (1990). Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1405–1408.10.1001/jama.1990.03440100121018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• DeGeest, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (2010). The impact of research synthesis methods on industrial–organizational psychology: The road from pessimism to optimism about cumulative knowledge. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(3–4), 185–197.10.1002/jrsm.v1.3/4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doucouliagos, H., & Stanley, T. D. (2009). Publication selection bias in minimum-wage research? A meta-regression analysis. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(2), 406–428.10.1111/bjir.2009.47.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duval, S. J. (2005). The “trim and fill” method. In H. R. Rothstein, A. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Ed.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 127–144). West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., … Williamson, P. R. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One, 3(8), e3081.10.1371/journal.pone.0003081
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & O’Rourke, K. (2001) Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews, In M. Egger, G. D. Smith, & D. Altman (eds.), Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context (2nd ed., 3–18), BMJ Books, London.10.1002/9780470693926
   Google Scholar
• Eisend, M., & Tarrahi, F. (2014). Meta-analysis selection bias in marketing research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 31(3), 317–326.10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, S. (1996). Statistician’s comment (to Misleading meta-analysis: “Fail safe N” is a useful mathematical measure of the stability of results by R. Persaud). British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 125.10.1136/bmj.312.7023.125a
   Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90(3), 891–904.10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, C. J., & Brannick, M. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 120–128.10.1037/a0024445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555–561.10.1177/1745691612459059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502–1505.10.1126/science.1255484
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008a). Do statistical reporting standards affect what is published? Publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(3), 313–326.10.1561/100.00008024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008b). Publication bias in empirical sociological research do arbitrary significance levels distort published results? Sociological Methods & Research, 37(1), 3–30.10.1177/0049124108318973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35(2), 393–419.10.1177/0149206308328501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenhouse, J. B., & Iyengar, S. (2009). Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 417–433). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82(1), 1–20.10.1037/h0076157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubbs, F. E. (1969). Procedures for detecting outlying observations in samples. Technometrics, 11(1), 1–21.10.1080/00401706.1969.10490657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, J. S., Banks, G. C., Pollack, J. M., O’Boyle, E. H., & Short, J. (2017). Publication bias in strategic management research. Journal of Management, 43, 400–425. doi: 10.1177/0149206314535438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartshorne, J., & Schachner, A. (2012). Tracking replicability as a method of post-publication open evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6(8), 1–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486–504.10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heine, M. L., Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003). The relationship between technology and performance: A meta-analysis of technology models. Omega, 31(3), 189–204.10.1016/S0305-0483(03)00026-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions; Version 5.1.0 [updated September 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from www.cochrane-handbook.org
   Google Scholar
• Huber, P. J. (1980). Robust statistics. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, M. I. (1996). The use of meta-analysis in MIS research: Promises and problems. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 27(3), 35–48.10.1145/264417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, M. I. (1998). Did task type matter in the use of decision room GSS? A critical review and a meta-analysis. Omega, 26(1), 1–15.10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00047-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang, M. I., & Schmidt, F. L. (2011). Assessing moderating effect in meta-analysis: A re-analysis of top management support studies and suggestions for researchers. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(6), 693–702.10.1057/ejis.2011.12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., & Greenhouse, J. B. (1988) Selection models and the file drawer problem. Statistical Science, 109-117.10.1214/ss/1177013012
   Google Scholar
• Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.10.2307/2392366
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532.10.1177/0956797611430953
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, M., Dybå, T., Liestøl, K., & Sjøberg, D. I. (2016) Incorrect results in software engineering experiments: How to improve research practices. Journal of Systems and Software, 116, 133–145. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.03.065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel MA and Whetzel DL (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 624–662.10.1177/1094428112452760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., & Oh, I-S (2014a). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of “Null” findings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 183–203.10.1007/s10869-012-9279-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kepes, S., Bennett, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014b). Evidence-based management and the trustworthiness of our cumulative scientific knowledge: Implications for teaching, research, and practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(3), 446–466.10.5465/amle.2013.0193
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kepes, S., Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Violent video game effects remain a societal concern: Comment on Hilgard, Engelhardt, and Rouder (2017). Psychological Bulletin, 143(7), 775–782.10.1037/bul0000112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(3), 252–268.10.1111/iops.12045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2015). The validity of conscientiousness is overestimated in the prediction of job performance. PLoS One, 10(10), e0141468.10.1371/journal.pone.0141468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kepes, S., McDaniel, M. A., Brannick, M. T., & Banks, G. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the meta-analytic reporting standards). Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 123–143.10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769–783.10.2307/255378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• King, W. R., & Jun, H. (2005). Understanding the role and methods of meta-analysis in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(32), 665–686.
   Google Scholar
• Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Shaffer, J., & Schmidt, F. L. (2007). Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: How practitioners benefit from meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(3), 6–15.10.5465/AMP.2007.26421233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. New Yorker, 86(40), 52–57.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, C., Standing, C., & Liu, Y.-C. (2008). A model to develop effective virtual teams. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1031–1045.10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., Rothstein, H. R., & Whetzel, D. L. (2006). Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 927–953.10.1111/peps.2006.59.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.10.2307/2084686
   Google Scholar
• Mervis, J. (2014). Why null results rarely see the light of day. Science, 345(6200), 992.10.1126/science.345.6200.992
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno, S. G., Sutton, A., Ades, A. E., Stanley, T. D., Abrams, K. R., Peters, J. L., & Cooper, N. J. (2009). Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(2). Retrieved from https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-9-2
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.10.1177/1745691612459058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399.10.1177/0149206314527133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Boyle, E. H., Rutherford, M. W., & Banks, G. C. (2014). Publication bias in entrepreneurship research: An examination of dominant relations to performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), 773–784.10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlitzky, M. (2012). How can significance tests be deinstitutionalized? Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 199–228.10.1177/1094428111428356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palvia, P., En Mao, P., Salam, A. F., & Soliman K. S. (2003). Management information systems research: What’s there in a methodology? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11(16), 289–308.
   Google Scholar
• Palvia, P. C., Jain Palvia, S. C., & Whitworth, J. E. (2002). Global information technology: A meta analysis of key issues. Information & Management, 39(5), 403–414.10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00106-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2007). Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 26(25), 4544–4562.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2008). Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(10), 991–996.10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rains, S. A. (2005). Leveling the organizational playing field—virtually: A meta-analysis of experimental research assessing the impact of group support system use on member influence behaviors. Communication Research, 32(2), 193–234.10.1177/0093650204273763
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothstein, H. (2012) Accessing relevant literature, In H. M. Cooper (ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics(pp. 133–144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.10.1037/13619-000
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009) Grey literature, In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, (2nd ed., 103–126) Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005a). Publication bias in meta-analyses. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Ed.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 1–7). West Sussex: Wiley.10.1002/0470870168
   Google Scholar
• Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005b). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. West Sussex: Wiley.10.1002/0470870168
   Google Scholar
• Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 84–101.10.5465/AMLE.2007.24401705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 419–489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, F. L. (1992). What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist, 47(10), 1173–1181.10.1037/0003-066X.47.10.1173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781483398105
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, F. L., Law, K., Hunter, J. E., Rothstein, H. R., Pearlman, K., & McDaniel, M. (1993). Refinements in validity generalization methods: Implications for the situational specificity hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 3–12.10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-analysis: A comparison of approaches. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarzer, G. (2015). Meta-analysis package for R: Package ‘meta.’ R package version 4.3-2.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, D. L., Kirkman, B. L., & Courtney, H. G. (2007). Perceived causes and solutions of the translation problem in management research. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 249–266.10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2011). Top management support and IS implementation: Further support for the moderating role of task interdependence. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(6), 703–712.10.1057/ejis.2011.39
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, T. D., & Doucouliagos, H. (2014). Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 60–78.10.1002/jrsm.v5.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley, T. D., Jarrell, S. B., & Doucouliagos, H. (2010). Could it be better to discard 90% of the data? A statistical paradox The American Statistician, 64(1), 70–77.10.1198/tast.2009.08205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterling, T. D., & Rosenbaum, W. L. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. American Statistician, 49(1), 108–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., … Higgins, J. P. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343(d4002), 302–307.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, A. J. (2005). Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 175–192). West Sussex: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, A. J. (2009) Publication bias, In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 435–452). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(1), 112–137.
   Google Scholar
• Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22(13), 2113–2126.10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), 28–45.10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10(4), 428–443.10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer, W. (2015) Meta-analysis package for R: Package ‘metafor.’ R package version 1.9-5.
   Google Scholar
• Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125.10.1002/jrsm.v1:2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanous, J. P., Sullivan, S. E., & Malinak, J. (1989). The role of judgment calls in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 259–264.10.1037/0021-9010.74.2.259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, J., & Lederer, A. (2009). A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in information technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 419–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong, E. (2012). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature, 485(7398), 298–300.10.1038/485298a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar