The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: a systematic review

Objective: The goal of this systematic review was to examine the reporting quality of quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of industrial and organizational psychology with the help of MARS, and to update the study of Aytug et al. (2012). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the top 10 journals in the field of industrial and organizational psychology between January 2009 and April 2016. Data were extracted on study characteristics and items of the method section of MARS. Results: Compliance with MARS was generally inadequate in the random sample of 120 articles. Variation existed in the reporting of items in the method section. There was no significant effect of publication year on reporting quality. Studies in APA journals had a significant better reporting quality than studies in non-APA journals. Conclusions: Some items of the method section improved in comparison with Aytug et al. (2012), but other items remained the same. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was still insufficient, therefore we recommend researchers to improve the reporting in their articles by using reporting standards like MARS