- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
The tendency of meta-analytic authors to select particular studies is called selection bias. Selection bias can affect the strength of the meta-analytic estimate and the attention that scholars devote to the results. This research is, in effect, a meta-analysis of the effect sizes reported or calculated from 94 meta-analysis studies of various topics in marketing research. The analysis reveals that estimates depend on the publication status of the included studies. The greater the percentage of studies that were published in academic journals vs. non-published studies, the greater is the size of the meta-effects, and the more published studies from leading journals the meta-analysis includes, the stronger the effect size. The meta-analytic effect size is a mediator for the influence of both the ratio of unpublished studies and the ratio of studies from leading journals on the probability of a meta-analysis to be published in a leading journal, which increases the number of citations to a meta-analysis. The findings of this study have several implications for meta-analysts, editors, reviewers and the marketing community on how to conduct and read current and future meta-analysis in marketing research.
This study examined the issue of selection bias in meta-analyses in marketing research by looking at meta-analytic effect sizes and their drivers and consequences. These effect sizes depend on whether and where a study included in a meta-analysis is published. The metaanalytic effect sizes steer the attention and the evaluation of a metaanalysis by other scholars. The main conclusion of the findings is that meta-analysts, reviewers, editors and the academic community should improve the reporting of a selection bias and—if possible—avoid such bias, because it is in the field's interest, like in any science, to concern itself with unbiased estimates and accurate findings. This helps to support the merit of meta-analyses that are both influential and important tools in research, because they develop empirical generalizations and summarize knowledge in an area.