Method Variance From the Perspectives of Reviewers: Poorly Understood Problem or Overemphasized Complaint?
Abstract
Beliefs and practices regarding common method variance (CMV) were surveyed from a sample of top journal board members. Results indicated that reviewers frequently mentioned CMV concerns and believed that addressing this issue in the design stage was more effective than postdata approaches. Although there was little consensus regarding whether concerns about CMV would cause them to recommend rejection of manuscripts, reviewers generally agreed...
Paper Details
Title
Method Variance From the Perspectives of Reviewers: Poorly Understood Problem or Overemphasized Complaint?
Published Date
Nov 30, 2009
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
421 - 434
Citation AnalysisPro
You’ll need to upgrade your plan to Pro
Looking to understand the true influence of a researcher’s work across journals & affiliations?
- Scinapse’s Top 10 Citation Journals & Affiliations graph reveals the quality and authenticity of citations received by a paper.
- Discover whether citations have been inflated due to self-citations, or if citations include institutional bias.
Notes
History