The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Meta-analyses summarize a field’s research base and are therefore highly influential. Despite their value, the standards for an excellent meta-analysis, one that is potentially award-winning, have changed in the last decade. Each step of a meta-analysis is now more formalized, from the identification of relevant articles to coding, moderator analysis, and reporting of results. What was exemplary a decade ago can be somewhat dated today. Using the award-winning meta-analysis by Stahl et al. (Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4):690–709, 2010) as an exemplar, we adopted a multi-disciplinary approach (e.g., management, psychology, health sciences) to summarize the anatomy (i.e., fundamental components) of a modern meta-analysis, focusing on: (1) data collection (i.e., literature search and screening, coding), (2) data preparation (i.e., treatment of multiple effect sizes, outlier identification and management, publication bias), (3) data analysis (i.e., average effect sizes, heterogeneity of effect sizes, moderator search), and (4) reporting (i.e., transparency and reproducibility, future research directions). In addition, we provide guidelines and a decision-making tree for when even foundational and highly cited meta-analyses should be updated. Based on the latest evidence, we summarize what journal editors and reviewers should expect, authors should provide, and readers (i.e., other researchers, practitioners, and policymakers) should consider about meta-analytic reviews.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.667 | 0.848 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".