The Kryptonite of Evidence-Based I–O Psychology

The focal article (Briner & Rousseau, 2011) addresses at length the merits of systematic reviews for advancing evidencebased practice. In general, we are in agreement with the authors, but we identify one major omission of the focal article that is critical for advancing evidence-based industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology and management: the topic of publication bias. Publication bias exists when primary study results available to a reviewer systematically differ from all primary study results (McDaniel, Rothstein, & Whetzel, 2006; Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005). Typically, publication bias serves to cause systematic reviews to overestimate the magnitude of effects. Thus, an ineffective management practice may be declared effective. Although systematic reviews (including qualitative studies and quantitative studies, such as meta-analyses) may demonstrate ‘‘superman’’-like qualities for their abilities to advance cumulative knowledge and evidence-based practice, publication bias can have a devastating effect on the accuracy of the reviews, much like ‘‘kryptonite’’ has a debilitating effect on Superman. The focal article asks, ‘‘What is needed to make I–O psychology an evidence-based