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

No abstract

Ethical decision making is vulnerable to the forces of automaticity. People behave differently in the face of a potential loss versus a potential gain, even when the two situations are transparently identical. Across three experiments, decision makers engaged in more unethical behavior if a decision was presented in a loss frame than if the decision was presented in a gain frame. In Experiment 1, participants in the loss-frame condition were more likely to favor gathering "insider information" than were participants in the gain-frame condition. In Experiment 2, negotiators in the loss-frame condition lied more than negotiators in the gain-frame condition. In Experiment 3, the tendency to be less ethical in the loss-frame condition occurred under time pressure and was eliminated through the removal of time pressure.