A Q&A primer and systematic review of meta-analytic reporting in organizational frontline service research

IF 7.8 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Kristina K. Lindsey-Hall, Eric J. Michel, Sven Kepes, Ji (Miracle) Qi, Laurence G. Weinzimmer, Anthony R. Wheeler, Matthew R. Leon
{"title":"A Q&A primer and systematic review of meta-analytic reporting in organizational frontline service research","authors":"Kristina K. Lindsey-Hall, Eric J. Michel, Sven Kepes, Ji (Miracle) Qi, Laurence G. Weinzimmer, Anthony R. Wheeler, Matthew R. Leon","doi":"10.1108/josm-07-2022-0229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a step-by-step primer on systematic and meta-analytic reviews across the service field, to systematically analyze the quality of meta-analytic reporting in the service domain, to provide detailed protocols authors may follow when conducting and reporting these analyses and to offer recommendations for future service meta-analyses.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Eligible frontline service-related meta-analyses published through May 2021 were identified for inclusion (k = 33) through a systematic search of Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, Business Source Complete, Web of Science, Google Scholar and specific service journals using search terms related to service and meta-analyses.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>An analysis of the existing meta-analyses within the service field, while often providing high-quality results, revealed that the quality of the reporting can be improved in several ways to enhance the replicability of published meta-analyses in the service domain.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Practical implications</h3>\n<p>This research employs a question-and-answer approach to provide a substantive guide for both properly conducting and properly reporting high-quality meta-analytic research in the service field for scholars at various levels of experience.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This work aggregates best practices from diverse disciplines to create a comprehensive checklist of protocols for conducting and reporting high-quality service meta-analyses while providing additional resources for further exploration.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":48089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Service Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Service Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-07-2022-0229","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a step-by-step primer on systematic and meta-analytic reviews across the service field, to systematically analyze the quality of meta-analytic reporting in the service domain, to provide detailed protocols authors may follow when conducting and reporting these analyses and to offer recommendations for future service meta-analyses.

Design/methodology/approach

Eligible frontline service-related meta-analyses published through May 2021 were identified for inclusion (k = 33) through a systematic search of Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, Business Source Complete, Web of Science, Google Scholar and specific service journals using search terms related to service and meta-analyses.

Findings

An analysis of the existing meta-analyses within the service field, while often providing high-quality results, revealed that the quality of the reporting can be improved in several ways to enhance the replicability of published meta-analyses in the service domain.

Practical implications

This research employs a question-and-answer approach to provide a substantive guide for both properly conducting and properly reporting high-quality meta-analytic research in the service field for scholars at various levels of experience.

Originality/value

This work aggregates best practices from diverse disciplines to create a comprehensive checklist of protocols for conducting and reporting high-quality service meta-analyses while providing additional resources for further exploration.

组织一线服务研究中元分析报告的问答入门和系统回顾
本文的目的是为整个服务领域的系统和元分析评论提供一步一步的入门,系统地分析服务领域的元分析报告的质量,提供作者在进行和报告这些分析时可能遵循的详细协议,并为未来的服务元分析提供建议。通过使用与服务和元分析相关的搜索词对Academic search Complete、PsycINFO、Business Source Complete、Web of Science、Google Scholar和特定的服务期刊进行系统搜索,确定了截至2021年5月发表的符合条件的一线服务相关荟萃分析(k = 33)。对服务领域现有的元分析的分析,虽然经常提供高质量的结果,但表明报告的质量可以通过几种方式得到改善,以增强已发表的元分析在服务领域的可复制性。实践意义本研究采用问答的方法,为不同经验水平的学者在服务领域正确开展和正确报告高质量的元分析研究提供实质性指导。原创性/价值这项工作汇集了来自不同学科的最佳实践,创建了一份全面的协议清单,用于进行和报告高质量的服务元分析,同时为进一步探索提供了额外的资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The Journal of Service Management (JOSM) centers its scope on research in service management. It disseminates papers showcasing distinctive and noteworthy contributions to service literature, serving as a communication platform for individuals in the service management field, transcending disciplines, functional areas, sectors, and nationalities. The journal publishes double-blind reviewed papers emphasizing service literature/theory and its practical applications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信