The impact of research depends on how well readers can understand and use published reports, yet as researchers we often fail to consider what our readers need. Instead, we structure reports to match a socially accepted, but often inappropriate, standard design – the “hourglass”. In this essay, I suggest that when writing a report, we should adjust our reporting style to suit our target readers. I outline four reporting templates for quantitative empirical studies that are suited to differing reader needs.
BanerjeeA. V.ChassangS.SnowbergE.2017. Decision theoretic approaches to experiment design and external validity. In Handbook of Economic Field Experiments (Vol. 1, pp. 141–174). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. https//doi.org/10.1016/bs.hefe.2016.08.005
5.
BemD.1987. Writing the empirical journal article. In ZannaU. M.DarleyJ. (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (pp. 185–219). New York: Random House.
6.
BemD.2011. Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3): 407. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0021524
7.
BerchicciL.KingA. A.2022a. Corporate Sustainability: A Model Uncertainty Analysis of Materiality. Journal of Financial Reporting, 7(2), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.2308/JFR-2021-022
8.
BerchicciL.KingA. A.2022b. Building knowledge by mapping model uncertainty in six studies of social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 43(7): 1319–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3374
9.
BloomfieldR.RennekampK.SteenhovenB.2018. No system is perfect: Understanding how registration-based editorial processes affect reproducibility and investment in research quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 56(2): 313–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12208
10.
CarneyD. R.CuddyA. J.YapA. J.2010. Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10): 1363–1368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437
11.
Cohen-ColeE.DurlaufS.FaganJ.NaginD.2008. Model uncertainty and the deterrent effect of capital punishment. American Law and Economics Review, 11(2): 335–369. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahn001
Credé, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2017). Revisiting the power pose effect: How robust are the results reported by Carney, Cuddy, and Yap (2010) to data analytic decisions? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(5), 493–499.
14.
CuddyA. J.SchultzS. J.FosseN. E.2018. P-curving a more comprehensive body of research on postural feedback reveals clear evidential value for power-posing effects: Reply to Simmons and Simonsohn (2017). Psychological Science, 29(4): 656–666. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797617746749
15.
DurlaufS. N.NavarroS.RiversD. A.2016. Model uncertainty and the effect of shall-issue right-to-carry laws on crime. European Economic Review, 81: 32–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2015.07.020
16.
EngberD.2017. Daryl Bem proved ESP is real: Which means science is broken. Slate, May, 17.
Galak, J., LeBoeuf, R. A., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2012). Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 933–948.
21.
GelmanA. Haig, B., Hennig, C., Owen, A. B., Cousins R., Young, S., Robert, C., Yanofsky, Corey., Wagenmakers, E. J., Kenett, R., Lakeland, D. 2019. Many perspectives on Deborah Mayo's “Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get Beyond the Statistics Wars”. Unpublished manuscript: www.stat.columbia.edu/∼gelman/research/ unpublished/mayo_reviews_2.pdf.
22.
GelmanA.LokenE.2013. The garden of forking paths: Why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no “fishing expedition” or “p-hacking” and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Department of Statistics, Columbia University, 348: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.36982613
23.
GernsbacherM. A.2018. Writing empirical articles: Transparency, reproducibility, clarity, and memorability. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3): 403–414. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2515245918754485
HackingI.2001. An Introduction to probability and Inductive Logic Desk Examination Edition. Cambridge UK: Cambridge Univ press. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/amr.2009.36982613.
HerndonT.AshM.PollinR.2014. Does high public debt consistently stifle economic growth? A critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(2): 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet075
31.
HollandP. W.1986. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 8(396), 945–960. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289064
32.
HumeD.1748/1993. An enquiry concerning human understanding. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Co.
33.
HumeD.1740/1985. A Treatise of Human Nature. In MossnerE. C. (Ed.) Penguin Classics. London, England: Penguin Classics.
34.
IchikawaJ. J.SteupM.2018. The Analysis of Knowledge. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer Edition). Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University.
35.
KingA.GoldfarbB.SimcoeT.2021. Learning from testimony on quantitative research in management. Academy of Management Review, 46(3): 465–488. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0421
36.
KraimerM. L.2023. Introducing Journal of Management Scientific Reports. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(1), 3–7.
37.
LeeS. M.2018. “Sliced And Diced: The Inside Story Of How An Ivy League Food Scientist Turned Shoddy Data Into Viral Studies”. BuzzFeed. Feb 28.
38.
Le GuinU. K.2004. The Wave in the Mind: Talks and Essays on the Writer, the Reader, and the Imagination. Boston, Massachusetts: Shambhala Publications. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-137-07261-9.
39.
LehmannE. L.1993. The Fisher, Neyman–Pearson theories of testing hypotheses: One theory or two?Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(424): 1242–1249. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2291263
40.
MadiganD.RafteryA. E.1994. Model selection and accounting for model uncertainty in graphical models using Occam's window. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(428): 1535–1546. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2291017
41.
MaronD. J.HochmanJ. S.ReynoldsH. R.BangaloreS.O’BrienS. M.BodenW. E., … AlexanderK. P.2020. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(15): 1395–1407. https://doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1915922
42.
MayoD. G.2018. Statistical inference as severe testing: How to get beyond the statistics wars. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
MillerK. D.TsangE. W.2011. Testing management theories: Critical realist philosophy and research methods. Strategic Management Journal, 32(2): 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.868
44.
NeymanJ.PearsonE. S.1933. IX. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 231(694–706): 289–337.
45.
PopperK. R.1971. Conjectural knowledge: My solution of the problem of induction. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 25(95/96), 167–197.
46.
RanehillE.DreberA.JohannessonM.LeibergS.SulS.WeberR. A.2015. Assessing the robustness of power posing: No effect on hormones and risk tolerance in a large sample of men and women. Psychological Science, 26(5): 653–656. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0956797614553946
47.
SalmonW. C.2017. The foundations of scientific inference. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
48.
SchwabA.AbrahamsonE.StarbuckW. H.FidlerF.2011. Perspective—researchers should make thoughtful assessments instead of null-hypothesis significance tests. Organization Science, 22(4): 1105–1120. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0557
49.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU.2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11): 1359–1366. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611417632.
SineW. D.LeeB. H.2009. Tilting at windmills? The environmental movement and the emergence of the US wind energy sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1): 123–155. https://doi.org/ 10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1
52.
SpanosA.2010. Is frequentist testing vulnerable to the base-rate fallacy?Philosophy of Science, 77(4): 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1086/656009
53.
ZuckermanE. W.1999. The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. American Journal of Sociology, 104(5): 1398–1438. https://doi.org/10.1086/210178