Workplace diversity and inclusion (D & I) practices today are based to a great extent on unevaluated experience and intuition rather than empirical evidence. Would voluntary professional practice standards in this field help to raise the level of current and future practice? Or would they be premature? If developed under 4 principles we describe, we predict the former. However, this positive outcome will also require industrial and organizational (I–O) psychologists to join their D & I colleagues in expanding research on D & I practices, strengthening the skills of D & I practitioners, assisting employers to avoid self-incrimination, and enhancing employer commitment to D & I itself. I–O psychologists should also be aware of other implications of D & I practice standards for their work.

The trustworthiness of research findings has been questioned in many domains of science. This article calls for a review of the trustworthiness of the scientific literature in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology and a reconsideration of common practices that may harm the credibility of our literature. We note that most hypotheses in I–O psychology journals are confirmed. Thus, we are either approaching omniscience or our journals are publishing an unrepresentative sample of completed research. We view the latter explanation as more likely. We review structural problems in the publication process and in the conduct of research that is likely to promote a distortion of scientific knowledge. We then offer recommendations to make the I–O literature more accurate and trustworthy.

In their focal article, Kepes and McDaniel (2013) provide recommendations to improve the trustworthiness and accuracy of scientific literature in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. These recommendations include frequent examples from the medical field and suggest that I–O psychology should emulate these methods. However, funding, political, and cultural norms are significantly different between these fields. For example, external grants that supplement medical funding focus on how the research can be effectively put into practice (Briner & Rousseau, 2011). This commentary extends the focal article's recommendations by providing potential first steps in an incremental change process toward the ideas discussed by Kepes and McDaniel. We emphasize research designs that can improve causal knowledge and expand two recommendations from the focal article: creating research registries and replicating studies. In doing so, we aim to make suggestions that are more applicable by only providing examples and implementation ideas from other psychology and organizational science disciplines.