2014/03/20 by Ernest H. O’Boyle, George C. Banks, Erik Gonzalez‐Mulé · 1 voice · 2 citations
Decision Sciences · Business, Management and Accounting · #scientometrics and bibliometrics research #Management and Organizational Studies
paper · doi:10.1177/0149206314527133
openalex publication_date 2014/03/20 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/12
The issue of a published literature not representative of the population of research is most often discussed in terms of entire studies being suppressed. However, alternative sources of publication bias are questionable research practices (QRPs) that entail post hoc alterations of hypotheses to support data or post hoc alterations of data to support hypotheses. Using general strain theory as an explanatory framework, we outline the means, motives, and opportunities for researchers to better their chances of publication independent of rigor and relevance. We then assess the frequency of QRPs in management research by tracking differences between dissertations and their resulting journal publications. Our primary finding is that from dissertation to journal article, the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses more than doubled (0.82 to 1.00 versus 1.94 to 1.00). The rise in predictive accuracy resulted from the dropping of statistically nonsignificant hypotheses, the addition of statistically significant hypotheses, the reversing of predicted direction of hypotheses, and alterations to data. We conclude with recommendations to help mitigate the problem of an unrepresentative literature that we label the “Chrysalis Effect.”