We describe adaptations at the Journal of Management to increase robust, reliable, and replicable research. We begin with the premise that a condition of information asymmetry exists within the submission review process. On one side, authors may or may not report material judgment calls with respect to methodological decisions and reporting of analytical models and findings. On the other side, editors and reviewers may have disclosure expectations and requirements that authors do not know. We describe structural changes made at the Journal of Management and to its review process designed to increase transparency and establish new standards of robust, reliable, and replicable research. We also describe how the special issue contributes to the journal’s trajectory toward improving scientific rigor and credibility.
AguinisH.RamaniR.AlabduljaderN.2018. What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals, 12: 83-110.
2.
BanksG. C.FieldJ. G.OswaldF. L.O’BoyleE. H.LandisR. S.RuppD. E.RogelbergS. G.2019. Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3: 257-270.
3.
BerghD. D.KetchenD. J.Jr.OrlandiI.HeugensP. P. M. A. R.BoydB. K.2019. Information asymmetry in management research: Past accomplishments and future opportunities. Journal of Management, 45: 122-158.
4.
MunafòM. R.NosekB. A.BishopD. V.ButtonK. S.ChambersC. D.du SertN. P.. . . IoannidisJ. P.2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1: Article 0021.
