Catalyzing Ethical Behavior Among Journal Editors in the Organizational Sciences and Beyond

• Featured Article •

Meghan A. Thornton, Oscar Jerome Stewart, Deborah E. Rupp and Steven G. Rogelberg

Abstract

In recent years, a number of issues and scandals within academic publishing have come to light. Not only have there been the high profile cases of author misconduct (e.g., blatant acts of plagiarism, Balter, 2012; cases involving the faking of data, Enserink, 2011), but issues of editor ethics have also begun to pervade the public discourse. This paper discusses editor ethics and responsibility and recent steps made in the field to promote ethical behavior among editors of academic journals. First, we outline many of the most salient ethical issues in the publication process, where editors play a role in curbing unethical behavior, and existing efforts to do so. Second, we highlight Journal Edi- tor Ethics, a current initiative by a number of journal editors to hold each other accountable for ethical behavior in their roles as editors of scientific journals. Third, we discuss how the Editor Code of Ethics may promote ethical behavior through commitment to the code and continued discourse about publication ethics.

Thornton; Stewart; Rupp; Rogelberg 9 Catalyzing Ethical Behavior among Journal Editors in the Organizational Sciences and Beyond

In recent years, a number of issues and scandals within academic publishing have come to light. Not only have there been the high profile cases of author misconduct (e.g., blatant acts of plagiarism, Balter, 2012; cases involving the faking of data, Enserink, 2011), but issues of editor ethics have also begun to pervade the public discourse. For example, accusations of coercive citations have emerged, in which editors and reviewers request that authors cite specific nonessential works, especially those featured in a given journal, to improve impact factors (Wilhite & Fong, 2012). Similarly, citation cartels (Davis, 2012) have been shown to exist whereby editors collaborate across journals, encouraging citations of articles in each other’s journals to boost impact while min- imizing self- citation. Indeed, these behaviors undermine both individual research studies as well as the overall credibility of the science (Rupp, 2011). This paper discusses editor ethics and responsibility and recent steps made in the field to promote ethical behavior among editors of academic journals. First, we outline many of the most salient ethical issues in the publication process, where editors play a role in curbing unethical behavior, and existing efforts to do so. Second, we highlight Journal Editor Ethics, a current initiative by a number of journal editors to hold each other accountable for ethical behavior in their roles as editors of scientific journals. Third, we discuss how the Editor Code of Ethics may promote ethical behavior through commitment to the code and continued discourse about publication ethics.

Existing Efforts to Address Editor Ethics Committee on Publication Ethics

The emergence, or rather the revelation, of unethical and irresponsible journal editor practices has led to a heightened discourse on publication ethics in academia. In 1997, a group of journal editors from the UK established the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) with the purpose of discussing misconduct in research and publications (http://www. publicationethics. org). Since its establishment, COPE has provided resources for editors, including a code of conduct, that act as guidelines for best practices as well as recommendations for dealing with issues of misconduct (via newsletters, seminars, and other forums). The code of conduct is generally structured around the various parties to whom an editor is accountable and the extent of his/her responsibilities toward these parties. Other topics addressed in the code deal with data and intellectual property, appeals and complaints, and conﬂicts of interest. For example, with regard to reviewers, editors are urged to encourage reviewers to

10 Journal of Information Ethics, Fall 2014 come to them when they suspect misconduct; to share reviewers’ comments with authors (though some exceptions may be appropriate); and to acknowledge reviewers’ contributions (COPE, 2011). COPE considers the ethical responsibilities of editors throughout the entire publication process, from peer review to selecting editorial board members to communications with readers. This broad view is evidenced in the types of cases of editorial and publication ethics COPE addresses, of which there are over forty. This range of cases includes data fabrication, redundant publications, and reviewer misconduct. Through this activity, COPE has increased awareness and communication of publishing ethics.

Impact of Social Sciences Project

Other organizations, such as the London School of Economics and Political Science, have also contributed to this discourse through their Impact of Social Sciences project. The project includes a blog in which researchers have broadly discussed research and its interaction with and impact on society at large. Although the featured authors address topics related to broad social impact, such as open access to scholarly articles (e.g., Carling, 2012) and public policy (e.g., Newman, 2012), the authors also address issues related to publication ethics, including alternatives to measuring impact (e.g., Becker, 2012). While the contributors to this blog have not directly addressed editor ethics, their articles on the previously mentioned issues offer insight into the future of academic publishing and ways to address outstanding issues in academic publishing. For example, open access to authors’ drafts of previously published papers might offer a way to track manuscript changes, thus documenting any additional citations, the removal of null ﬁndings, and other edits that relate to publication ethics. Further, while the blog analyzes, addresses, and criticizes the publishing industry directly (e.g., Haynes, 2013), it indirectly implicates editors in these issues as contributors to and stakeholders in the publication industry.

Academy of Management Code of Ethics

The Academy of Management launched a Code of Ethics in 2005 and since then has created a web video series and blog (The Ethicist) to address issues related to ethics in the organizational sciences, particularly in research. Its web video series addresses issues such as authorship, plagiarism, and reporting research. The video most directly related to editor and reviewer ethics focuses on reviewing manuscripts (“Ethics Video Series: Reviewing Manuscripts,” http://www. youtube. com/ watch?v= 8fLUv7dfLuI&list= PL65B059BC 12E75502 & index= 7). Experts in the organizational sciences, including individuals who

Thornton; Stewart; Rupp; Rogelberg 11 have served as journal editors, weigh in on whether scholars should review manuscripts they have reviewed before, if it is appropriate to cite works they are reviewing, and whether reviewers should decline invitations if they lack expertise in the content area. Further, the video also includes excerpts from the Academy of Management’s Code of Ethics that directly relate to reviewer ethics. The blog The Ethicist has also addressed editor and reviewer ethical dilemmas. For example, Eden (2011) highlighted threats to double blind review in the Internet age. Reviewers can easily access conference presentations or prelimi- nary versions of papers through Google Scholar and even academics’ personal web pages. These technological advances threaten complete author anonymity and impact reviewers’ ability to provide a completely blind review (Rupp, 2011).

Special Issue in Perspectives on Psychological Science

Journals and other academic publications have encouraged and provided opportunities for researchers to discuss editor and journal ethics. Perspectives on Psychological Science included a special issue on replication of science that published articles on replication of findings directly (e.g., Francis, 2012; Klein et al., 2012; Makel, Plucker, & Hegarty, 2012), null findings (Ferguson & Heene, 2012) and confirmatory research (Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas, & Keivit, 2012). As a collection, these papers speak to issues in reproducibility, namely, the extent to which replication research is actually conducted and how often findings are reproduced (Makel, Plucker, & Hegarty, 2012), author’s capitalization on chance and reports of inflated effects (Bakker, van Dijk, & Wicherts, 2012), aversion to null findings (Ferguson & Heene, 2012), and the preference for and pressure to have a good research narrative (i.e., one in which results confirm hypotheses; Giner- Sorolla, 2012). The latter half of this issue also provides actionable feedback for authors, reviewers, and editors on how to encourage the replication of previous studies, including providing outlets for replications within journals (Koole & Lakens, 2012), methods for promoting better science in light of reproducibility issues (Nosek, Spies, & Motyl, 2012), and conducting confirmatory research (Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, van der Maas, & Kievit, 2012). The special issue as a whole provides many suggestions for editors in terms of ethical practices, especially in relation to promoting good science. The issue suggests that editors, where appropriate, should be open to considering replications and reporting null findings. Finally, to make steps toward the goal of publishing quality and reputable advances in science, editors and reviewers should include checklists to ensure that all pertinent information is included in papers (e.g., effect sizes, power analysis, miss- ing data; see American Psychological Association, 2008).

12 Journal of Information Ethics, Fall 2014 Reproducibility Project

In addition, the establishment of the Reproducibility Project, which is sponsored by the Open Science Framework and coordinated by Brian Nosek and Jeffrey Spies, brings attention to the issue of replication in the social sciences (Carpenter, 2012). The Open Science Framework enables researchers to work collaboratively and with greater transparency into the research process (e.g., sharing and registering research materials with other researchers) and is described as “part network of research materials, part version control system, and part collaboration software” (Open Science Framework, http://www. open scienceframework. org/ project/ 4znZP/ wiki/ home). Acknowledging that practices in publication contribute to biased results, the leaders of this project aim to replicate studies from Psychological Science, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. They hope to address two key questions—if there is a higher rate of positive results in published studies than theoretically expected, and whether or not studies are actually reproducible. This project will not only encourage researchers to evaluate the work of their peers, but also will encourage editors to maintain higher standards when evaluating experimental research for publication. This may also lead reviewers and editors to be more apt to request results that were not included in an original submission in order to provide greater transparency and a more accurate representation of phenomena being studied. Further, the hope is that journal editors might push for the publication of replications in their journals, with the goal of contributing to the efforts started by the Reproducibility Project.

Debate Featured in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice

Within the field of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, a focal paper has been published in the Society of I/O Psychology’s flagship journal that seeks to uncover various forms of unethical behavior and corruption among authors, reviewers, editors, and journals (Kepes & McDaniel, in press). The authors posit that these issues have significantly distorted our scientific knowledge and make recommendations for field- level change. They offer actionable suggestions for editors and reviewers during the review process to help curtail issues such as “chasing the significant,” HARKing (i.e., hypothesizing after results are known, Kerr, 1998), replication, and publication bias. Primarily, they argue that peer review should proceed in a two- stage fashion. The first stage would involve a review of only the introduction, methods, and analysis, while the second stage would review the manuscript in full. They also argue that authors should provide all data and syntax used to analyze their data and propose that

Thornton; Stewart; Rupp; Rogelberg 13 journals publish null findings and replication studies. These practices would discourage HARKing and recommendations for changes in hypotheses, the dropping of hypotheses, the dropping of full studies, and the dropping of null findings. These practices would also encourage greater transparency with regard to data analyses and research findings.

Special Issue of Management and Organization Review

Another publication giving attention to the issues of editor ethics is the journal Management and Organization Review. This journal published a special issue on research and publishing ethics in which scholars touched on topics such as ethical dilemmas faced by authors (e.g., Chen, 2011; Kirkman & Chen, 2011) and reviewers (Rupp, 2011). Two of the papers within this issue focused on editor ethics. First, Rupp (2011) addresses these issues by, rather than providing broad stroke recommendations for editor practices, discussing aspects of the editorial process in which editors might find themselves facing ethical dilemmas. Specifically, she addresses desk rejections, reviewer assignments, HARKing, validity evidence, and balancing quality with publication rate. In terms of desk rejections, Rupp outlines the dilemmas editors find themselves in when attempting to ease tensions between over- extended reviewers and authors who deserve a fair chance at publication. She states that editors have a responsibility to assign reviewers according to their expertise and to provide balanced perspective during the review process, and advises editors to be aware of HARKing, which creates non- replicable theory and distorts results. She pro- motes a holistic view of validation, stressing that editor focus on validity will help allow for scientific communities’ inferential confidence in authors’ meas- ures. Lastly, Rupp discusses the responsibility of editors to make decisions that are in the best interest of scientific progress rather than in political gain. Rupp also provides some guidelines for how reviewers should provide feedback, critically examine manuscripts, and promote the spirit of double blind review, even though technology often enables us to identify authors. Through addressing these issues, more concrete and actionable ways for editors and reviewers to engage in ethical behavior are highlighted, with the conclusion that editors and reviewers have an obligation to uphold ethical standards while serving in their roles, thereby calling for these individuals to incorporate and integrate ethical norms into their practices within the realm of scholarly research. In the same MOR special issue on research and publishing ethics Aguinis and Vaschetto (2011) highlight the ethical dilemma faced by editors, namely, the opposing obligations to serving one’s journal and focusing on one’s own career and work. They recommend that editors take a multi- stakeholder or triple- bottom line framework, where authors, reviewers, universities, and the

14 Journal of Information Ethics, Fall 2014 field at large are considered when making policy decisions on behalf of the journal. Specifically, while editors have obligations to serve their own needs, they also have an obligation to primary and secondary stakeholders (e.g., authors and society at large, respectively). Editors addressing obligations to authors, for example, through timely, thorough, and fair peer review processes improve the quality of research that is published within their journal. Thus, the editors contribute to their scholarly field and even society at large, by publishing quality scientific research. However, they also note that this dedication is often rewarded through increased status for the journal and editorial team (Aguinis & Vaschetto, 2011, p. 415–416).

Ethical Practices of Journal Editors: Voluntary Code of Conduct

A group of journal editors have recently taken a proactive approach to reduce the aforementioned issues of editor ethics and responsibility in research. The edi - tors of Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, and Academy of Management Journal created a Voluntary Code of Conduct, outlining four specific behaviors which affirming editors agree to carry out. These include refraining from the practice of coercive citations; decoupling journal marketing from anything tied to peer review and editorial decision making; encouraging data transparency, the reporting of null results, replication and concealed post- hoc theorizing; and communicating/ promoting these practices publicly. Table 1 lists the code in its entirety. Whereas this code complements the many other codes and efforts described above, the movement generated by this team of researchers was intended to be proactive and to generate grassroots action specifically by editors, coupled with behavioral intent that will ultimately serve to allay editorial misconduct (Jaschik, 2012). The philosophy behind the movement corresponds with what research has uncovered in the areas of “soft law”—which refers to looser forms of regulatory governance that does not have the force of law or threat of penalty, but that supports autonomous decision making, creates normative social pressures, and eventually leads parties to come to internalize the values undergirding the voluntary code (Conley & Williams, 2005; Rupp, Williams, & Aguilera, 2011; Williams, 2004). After developing the code, the founding editors solicited editors of journals across the organizational and social sciences to obtain their commitment to the code. To begin this process of support and commitment to the code, the founding editors first identified and contacted editors at the top- ranked organizational, applied psychology, and management journals (see www. editorethics. uncc.edu). As the editors at these journals began to publicly affirm the code, other editors and associate editors began to also directly publicly affirm.

Thornton; Stewart; Rupp; Rogelberg 15 Table 1. Ethical Practices of Journal Editors: Voluntary Code of Conduct. Version 1.0 The Editors and Associate Editors listed below, although also bound by the ethical standards already in place at their respective journals, their sponsoring professional associations, and/or their disciplinary fields in general, affirm, as individual editors and scholars (not on behalf of their journals or sponsoring associations) the importance of the following practices: I. Refraining from coercive citation practices. Namely, in both public submission guidelines, as well as within the peer review process, authors will be encouraged to omit citations that are irrelevant to a paper’s main thesis. Specifically, I will refrain from encouraging authors to cite my journal, or those of my colleagues, unless the papers suggested are pertinent to specific issues raised within the context of the review. I acknowledge that any blanket request to cite a particular journal, as well as the suggestion of citations without a clear explanation of how the additions address a specific gap in the paper, is coercive and unethical. II. Encouraging my journal, its staff, and its sponsors and publishers to keep marketing strategies separate from the peer review process (if applicable). This could include but is not limited to using author or reviewer databases for mass marketing purposes; allowing publishers to use the peer review systems to market online access or sub- scription information; and allowing publishers’ financial motives to drive strategy that has a non- science-based bearing on the peer review process. III. In recognizing the global dialog regarding data fraud, research integrity, and implicit pressures on authors to manipulate findings, hide results, etc., I will, whenever pos- sible and appropriate given the scope of my journal, encourage: a) data transparency including identifying potential conflicts of interest, b) citing of archival data sources properly, and for one- off data collections, describing the full set of variables and other publications emerging from the data sample under review; c) to consider publishing theoretically/methodologically-relevant null results; d) support of substantive and important replication efforts; e) and discourage opportunistic and atheoretical post- hoc hypothesizing. IV. Communicating these and other relevant ethical standards to my associate editors and board members, and conveying these principles within appropriate public forums (e.g., editors’ panels at professional conferences). Authors who feel that these practices have been violated should be encouraged to bring their questions, with reference to this Code, to the attention of the Editor whose actions (or whose pub- lisher’s/sponsor’s actions) may be in question. V. I approve of this Code and its signatories being posted on a public Internet site.

The founding editors then promoted the code of conduct through academic listserves, social media, press releases, and academically- oriented press organizations. Currently, 116 editors have affirmed the code, as have 86 associate editors (see Table 2). While the majority of these individuals serve journals in the organizational sciences, other fields represented include sports and exercise, counseling psychology, consumer psychology, biology, and medicine. As has been the case with other voluntary commitments to responsible behavior (e.g., Rupp et al., 2011), it is hoped that editors’ affirmation of the code will lead to their taking responsibility for their behavior not just because of normative pressures from the scientific community but because of an

16 Journal of Information Ethics, Fall 2014 Table 2. Journals Whose Editors Have Afﬁrmed the Editors’ Code of Conduct as of April 2013 Academy of Management Annals International Journal of Forecasting Academy of Management Journal International Journal of Physical Distri- Academy of Management Learning & bution & Logistics Management Education International Journal of Technology Academy of Management Perspectives Marketing Administrative Science Quarterly Journal for Contextual Behavioural Sci- Advances in International Management ence American Journal of Business Education Journal for East European Management Applied HRM Research Studies Applied Psychology: An International The Journal for Studies in Economics Review and Econometrics Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Studies Journal of Applied Psychology Asian Business & Management Journal of Business and Psychology British Journal of Management Journal of Business Case Studies Business Ethics Quarterly Journal of Business Logistics Canadian Journal of Administrative Sci- Journal of Business Venturing ences Journal of Chinese Human Resource Career Development International Management Career Development Quarterly Journal of Consumer Psychology Cornell Hospitality Quarterly Journal of Counseling Psychology Corporate Governance: An International Journal of Employment Counseling Review Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Diversity The Counseling Psychologist in Social Work Decision Sciences Journal Journal of Experimental Psychology: European Journal of International Man- Applied agement Journal of Experimental Psychology: European Journal of Personality General European Journal of Work and Organi- Journal of Human Resources Education zational Psychology Journal of Information Ethics Family Business Review Journal of International Business Studies Group & Organization Management Journal of International Management Hispania Journal of Leadership & Organizational Human Performance Studies Human Resource Development Quar- Journal of Management terly Journal of Management Education Human Resource Management Journal Journal of Management Mathematics Human Resource Management Review Journal of Management Studies IMA Journal of Management Mathemat- Journal of Managerial Psychology ics Journal of Natural Science Biology and The Industrial Organizational Psycholo- Medicine gist Journal of Nursing Management Industry and Innovation Journal of Occupational Health Psychol- Information and Management ogy Information Technology and Manage- Journal of Organizational Behavior ment Journal of Organizational Behavior Innovation: Management, Policy and Management Practice Journal of Organizational Change Man- International Journal of Communication agement

Thornton; Stewart; Rupp; Rogelberg 17 Table 2. Journals Whose Editors Have Affirmed the Editors’ Code of Conduct as of April 2013 (continued) Journal of Personnel Psychology Organizational Research Methods Journal of Poetry Therapy Pennsylvania Literary Journal Journal of Small Business & Entrepre- People & Strategy neurship Personnel Psychology Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Psychology of Sport and Exercise Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology Research in Organizational Behavior Journal of Supply Chain Management Research on Social Work Practice Journal of Technology Transfer Research Policy Journal of World Business Research Quarterly for Exercise and Journal Organizational Aesthetics Sport Journal Psychology of Music Review of Business Information Systems Knowledge Management Research & Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Adminis- Practice trativa Leadership Quarterly Revista Gestão & Planejamento Management and Organization Review Small Group Research Management Communication Quarterly The South African Journal of Business Management International Review Management Memoirs of the Scientific Sections of the South African Journal of Economic and Romanian Academy Management Sciences Organization Strategic Organization Organization Management Journal System Dynamics Review Organizational Behavior and Human Tiberian Journal of Pharm and Life- Decision Processes science Innovatives Organizational Dynamics Work & Stress Organizational Psychology Review increased internalization of the values inherent in the promotion of research ethics. It is also hoped that this will be further facilitated via continued scholarly discourse. One such vehicle for this is the Journal Editor Ethics web platform. Technological features of this platform provide unique affordances to its community of scholars (Treem & Leonardi, 2012). Specifically, the web platform offers higher degrees of visibility of ethical discourse and behavior, relative permanence and accessibility of ethics resources, and mutual editability of the code of ethics. The message board and comment sections particularly give scholars a place and a voice to discuss enhancement of the code of conduct and other developments toward editor ethics and responsibility. These two features allow for the discourse to remain visible and permanent, albeit through an ever- growing, organic process of revision. The website also affords its members the ability to continue establishing a community of recognition for proactive ethical practices within the academic community. This is well underway as the website also warehouses links to other ongoing ethics- related efforts, such as the codes of conduct from the Journal of International Business Studies and the European Science Foundation as well as the initiatives highlighted in this paper.

18 Journal of Information Ethics, Fall 2014 Conclusion The convergence of editors, reviewers, and other figures involved in the research process, at conferences, in print, within online communities, and via other physical or virtual gatherings allow for ongoing dialogue regarding the standards by which we should be conducting, reviewing, shepherding, and dis- seminating research. This remains a dynamic and ever- evolving process, carried out with transparency and in consideration of the myriad stakeholders involved with scholarly research. The goals presented in this paper, while lofty, are meant to be realistic, actionable, and universal. The publishing industry should be a catalyst for, not a detriment to, scientific progress. Journal editors control the quality of science that reaches the scientific community. They have a profound responsibility as the gatekeepers of scientific knowledge. We argue that editor ethics and social responsibility can play a role in reducing unethical behavior in the scientific community, more generally. As the community of journal editors is a small one, but one with a great deal of power, small steps by those is such positions, agreeing to and affirming a code of conduct, could have substantive effects on both the fairness of the publication process, as well as the dissemination of knowledge.

References Aguinis, H., and S. J. Vaschetto (2011). Editorial Responsibility: Managing the Publishing Process to Do Good and Do Well. Management and Organization Review, 7, 407– 422. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.1111 /j. 1740–8784.20 11.00223. x Bakker, M., A. van Dijk, and J. M. Wicherts (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 77/ 1745691612459060 Balter, M. (2012). Reviewer’s Déjà Vu, French Science Sleuthing Uncover Plagiarized Papers. Science, 335(6073), 1157–1158. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 26/science. 335. 6073. 1157 Becker, J. (2012, October 9). We can do much better than rely on the self- fulﬁlling impact factor: Academics must harness ideas of engagement to illustrate their impact. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://blogs. lse. ac. uk/ impactofsocialsciences. Carling, J. (2012, November 19). Use your author’s rights to make articles freely available. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://blogs. lse. ac. uk/ impactofsocialsciences Carpenter, S. (2012). Psychology’s bold initiative. Science, 4, 335: 1558–1561. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 26/science. 335. 6076. 1558 Chen, X. P. (2011). Author ethical dilemmas in the research publication process. Man- agement and Organization Review, 7, 423–432. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.1111 /j. 1740–8784.20 11.00229. x Conley, J. M., and C. A. Williams (2005). Engage, embed, and embellish: Theory versus practice in the corporate social responsibility movement. Journal of Corporation Law, 31, 1–38. Davis, P. (2012). The Emergence of a Citation Cartel. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from http:// scholarlykitchen. sspnet. org/ 2012/ 04/1 0/ emergence- of- a- citation- cartel/http:// www. someaddress. com/ full/ url/

Thornton; Stewart; Rupp; Rogelberg 19 Eden, L. (2011, November 1). Double- blind review in the age of Google and PowerPoint. [Web log]. Retrieved from http:// ethicist. aom. org/ Enserink, M. (2011). Dutch university sacks social psychologist over faked data. Science, http://news. sciencemag. org/ scienceinsider/ 20 11/09/ dutch- university- sacks- social. html Ferguson, C. J., and M. Heene (2012). A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories: Publication Bias and Psychological Science’s Aversion to the Null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555–561. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 77/ 1745691612459059 Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 562–571. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 77/ 1745691612457576 Haynes, A. (2013, February 5). Scholarly publishing: why not co- operatives? [Web log]. Retrieved from http://blogs. lse. ac. uk/ impactofsocialsciences Jaschik, S. (2012, January 6). Kill Peer Review or Reform It? Retrieved from http://www. insidehighered.com/ news/ 20 12/0 1/06/ humanities- scholars- consider- role- peer- review Kepes, S., and M. A. McDaniel (in press). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in I- O psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.1 207/s 15327957pspr0203_4 Kirkman, B. L., and G. Chen (2011). Maximizing your data or data slicing? Recommen- dations for managing multiple submissions from the same dataset. Management and Organization Review, 7, 433–446. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.1111 /j. 1740–8784.20 11.00228. x Koole, S. L., and D. Lakens (2012). Rewarding Replications: A Sure and Simple Way to Improve Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 608–614. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 77/ 1745691612462586 Makel, M. C., J. A. Plucker, and B. Hegarty (2012). Replications in Psychology Research: How Often Do They Really Occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 537– 542. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 77/ 1745691612460688 Newman, K. (2012, December 3). Research- based policymaking is complicated … or is it? [Web log]. Retrieved from: http:// blogs. lse. ac. uk/ impactofsocialsciences Nosek, B. A., J. R. Spies, and M. Motyl (2012). Scientific Utopia II. Restructuring Incen- tives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability. Perspectives on Psycho- logical Science, 7, 615–631. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 77/ 1745691612459058 Rupp, D. E. (2011). Research and publishing ethics: Editor and reviewer responsibilities. Management and Organization Review, 7, 481–493. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.1111 /j. 1740–8784.20 11.00227. x Rupp, D. E., and C. A. Williams (2011). The Efficacy of Regulation as a Function of Psy- chological Fit: Reexamining the Hard Law/Soft Law Continuum. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 12, 581–602. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.2202/ 1565–3404. 1280 Rupp, D. E., C. A. Williams, and R. V. Aguilera (2011). Increasing corporate social responsibility through stakeholder value internalization (and the catalyzing effect of new governance): An application of organizational justice, self- determination, and social influence theories. Managerial Ethics. New York: Taylor and Francis. Wagenmakers, E. J., R. Wetzels, D. Borsboom, H. L. van der Maas, and R. A. Kievit (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 77/ 1745691612463078 Wilhite, A. W., and E. A. Fong (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6068), 542–543. http://dx. doi. org/ 10.11 26/science. 1212540

20 Journal of Information Ethics, Fall 2014 Williams, C. A. (2004). Civil society initiatives and “soft law” in the oil and gas industry. New York University Journal of Law and Politics, 36, 457–502.

Meghan A. Thornton is a doctoral student at Purdue University. Her research focuses on justice, corporate social responsibility, emotions in the workplace, and measurement. She also serves as the Managing Editor of the Journal of Management. 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. .

Oscar Jerome Stewart is a doctoral student in the Organizational Science program at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His interests are in business ethics and corporate social responsibility. He also is interested in pedagogical research in higher education. 9201 University Avenue, Charlotte, NC 28223. .

Deborah E. Rupp, PhD, is the William C. Byham Chair in Industrial/Organizational Psychology in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Purdue University. She has over 70 publications and has presented her work in over 13 countries. Her expertise is in the areas of workplace bias and employment- related legal issues; organizational justice, behavioral ethics, corporate social responsibility, and humanitarian work psychology; emotions in the workplace; the assessment center method and technology in assessment; and cross cultural issues related to workplace justice and assessment. She currently serves as a representative to the United Nations for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and is the Editor of The Journal of Management. 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. .

Steven G. Rogelberg, PhD, is a Professor and Director of Organizational Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has over 70 publications and over 50 invited addresses/colloquiums addressing issues such as team effectiveness, leadership, employee well- being, meetings at work, and organizational assessment. He is the Editor of the Journal of Business and Psychology. UNC Charlotte, Colvard 4025, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223. .

Thornton; Stewart; Rupp; Rogelberg 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.