Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:17:14.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The TOP factor: An indicator of quality to complement journal impact factor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

Sven Kepes ,
George C. Banks  and
Sheila K. Keener
Sven Kepes*
Affiliation:
Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Business, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship
George C. Banks
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Belk College of Business
Sheila K. Keener
Affiliation:
Old Dominion University, Strome College of Business
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 328 - 333
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S., & Cummings, T. G. (2020). “An A is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135–154. doi: 10.5465/amp.2017.0193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Finance Association. (n.d.). Submission to the Journal of Finance. Retrieved from https://afajof.org/submissions/ Google Scholar
Antonakis, J., Banks, G. C., Bastardoz, N., Cole, M. S., Day, D. V., Eagly, A. H., Epitropaki, O., Foti, R. R., Gardner, W. L., Haslam, S. A., Hogg, M. A., Kark, R., Lowe, K. B., Podsakoff, P. M., Spain, S. M., Stoker, J. I., Van Quaquebeke, N., van Vugt, M., Vera, D., … Weber, R. (2019). The Leadership Quarterly: State of the journal. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73, 3–25. doi: 10.1037/amp0000191 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I-O psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 3–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01287.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Open Science. (2020). New measure rates quality of research journals’ policies to promote transparency and reproducibility. https://cos.io/about/news/new-measure-rates-quality-research-journals-policies-promote-transparency-and-reproducibility/ Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (2020). Reporting quantitative research in psychology: How to meet APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standard (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickersin, K., & Rennie, D. (2012). The evolution of trial registries and their use to assess the clinical trial enterprise. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307, 1861–1864. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.4230 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabriel, A. S., & Wessel, J. L. (2013). A step too far? Why publishing raw datasets may hinder data collection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 287–290. doi: 10.1111/iops.12051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwicke, T. E., Mathur, M. B., MacDonald, K., Nilsonne, G., Banks, G. C., Kidwell, M. C., Mohr, A. H., Clayton, E., Yoon, E. J., Tessler, M. H., Lenne, R. L., Altman, S., Long, B., & Frank, M. C. (2018). Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: Evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition. Royal Society Open Science, 5, Article 180448. doi: 10.1098/rsos.180448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., & Melick, S. R. (2020). Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: Impressions of SIOP members. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 13(3), 273–290.Google Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, J. W., & Dages, K. D. (2013). A new era of large-scale data sharing: A test publisher’s perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 309–312. doi: 10.1111/iops.12057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. L. (2007). What causes a management article to be cited—article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 491–506. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kepes, S., Bennett, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Evidence-based management and the trustworthiness of our cumulative scientific knowledge: Implications for teaching, research, and practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 446–466. doi: 10.5465/amle.2013.0193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kepes, S., List, S. K., & McDaniel, M. A. (2018). Enough talk, it’s time to transform: A call for editorial leadership for a robust science. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 11, 43–48. doi: 10.1017/iop.2017.83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 252–268. doi: 10.1111/iops.12045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kieser, A., & Leiner, L. (2009). Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 516–533. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurin, R. (2013). The Smithsonian’s history of America in 101 objects. Penguin.Google Scholar
Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Peer status in emerging adulthood: Associations of popularity and preference with social roles and behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27, 132–150. doi: 10.1177/0743558411402341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). The journal impact factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. In Glänzel, W., Moed, H. F., Schmoch, U., & Thelwall, M. (Eds.), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 3–24). Springer.Google Scholar
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73, 26–46. doi: 10.1037/amp0000151 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyakawa, T. (2020). No raw data, no science: Another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Molecular Brain, 13, 24. doi: 10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muller, J. Z. (2019). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Fostering integrity in research. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Ratings, Nielsen. (2020). Top 10 list for cable network TV-United States (Week of February 3, 2020). Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., Buck, S., Chambers, C. D., Chin, G., Christensen, G., Contestabile, M., Dafoe, A., Eich, E., Freese, J., Glennerster, R., Goroff, D., Green, D. P., Hesse, B., Humphreys, J., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 26, 1422–1425. doi: 10.1126/science.aab2374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 217–243. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Boyle, E., Banks, G. C., Carter, K., Walter, S., & Yuan, Z. (2019). A 20-year review of outcome reporting bias in moderated multiple regression. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34, 19–37. doi: 10.1007/s10869-018-9539-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. L., & Huang, L. (2012). The decreasing value of our research to management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 247–262. doi: 10.5465/amle.2011.0554 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PLoS One. (n.d.). Submission guidelines. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M. (2012). The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saylors, R., & Trafimow, D. (in press). Why the increasing use of complex causal models is a problem: On the danger sophisticated theoretical narratives pose to truth. Organizational Research Methods. doi: 10.1177/1094428119893452 Google Scholar
Schalken, N., & Rietbergen, C. (2017). The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1395. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01395 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinmetz, K. (2016). How America kicked France in the pants and changed the world of wine forever. Time Magazine. https://time.com/4342433/judgment-of-paris-time-magazine-anniversary/ Google Scholar
Zarin, D. A., Tse, T., Williams, R. J., & Carr, S. (2016). Trial reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov: The final rule. New England Journal of Medicine, 375, 1998–2004. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1611785 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed