Study effects developed from the same data set and duplicated in more than one publication likely will bias the aggregated effects in a meta-analysis. This threat to the validity of meta-analyses in organizational research is significant. Methods of detecting overt and covert duplication of publication are presented through an analysis of five published meta-analyses. An unpublished meta-analysis of salesperson turnover is used to present the implications of nonindependence. Options for the correction of duplication are discussed. It is recommended that study effects gathered during the literature search use the proposed screening heuristic to detect and address duplicate study effects.
Bobko, P., & Roth, P.L. (2003). Meta-analysis and validity generalizations as research tools: Issues of sample bias and degrees of mis-specification. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Cortina, J.M., Goldstein, N.B., Payne, S.C., Davison, H.K., & Gilliland, S.L. (2000). The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 325-351.
Davis, P.M. (2005). The ethics of republishing: A case study of Emerald/MCB University Press journals. Library Resources & Technical Services, 49(2), 72-78.
5.
De Mooij, R.A., & Ederveen, S. (2003). Taxation and direct investment: A synthesis of empirical research. International Tax and Public Finance, 10(6), 673-693.
6.
Dennis, A.R., Wixom, B.H., & Vandenberg, R.J. (2001). Understanding fit and appropriation effects in group support systems via meta-analysis. MIS Quarterly , 25(2), 167-193.
7.
Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-488.
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Meyer, M.J., & McMahon, D. (2004). An examination of ethical research conducted by experienced and novice accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education, 19(4), 413-442.
13.
Nijman, T., & Verbeek, M. (1990). Estimation of time-dependent parameters in linear models using cross-sections, panels, or both. Journal ofEconometrics, 46(3), 333-347.
14.
Petry, G.H. (1988). A statistical analysis of worldwide coauthorship relationships in scholarly journals of business. Journal of Economics and Business, 40(2), 169-176.
15.
Rust, R.T., & Cooil, B. (1994). Reliability measures for qualitative data: Theory and implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 1-14.
16.
Schwarzer, R. (2000). Meta-analysis (Version 5.0). Berlin: Shareware.
17.
Sohn, S.Y. (2000). Meta analysis with potentially correlated marketing study results. Journal of Statistical Computation andSimulation , 65(2), 95-107.
18.
Stewart, W.H., & Roth, P.L. (2004). Data quality affects meta-analytic conclusions: A response to Miner and Raju (2004) concerning entrepreneurial risk propensity . Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 14-21.
19.
Strube, M.J. (1987). A general model for estimating and correcting the effects of nonindependence in meta-analysis. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 16(2), 40-47.
20.
Tenopir, C. (2005). Duplication is ubiquitous. Library Journal, 130(6), 32.
21.
Tramer, M.R., Reynolds, D.J.M., Moore, R.A., & McQuay, H.J. (1997). Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. British Medical Journal, 315, 635-640.
22.
Trotman, K.T., & Wood, R. (1991). A meta-analysis of studies on internal control judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(1), 180-192.
23.
von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., & Tramer, M.R. (2004). Different patterns of duplicate publication: An analysis of articles in systematic reviews. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(8), 974-980.
