Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In the first issue of Organizational Psychology Review, Daan van Knippenberg stated that I would be elaborating on the issue of what makes a good meta-analysis (van Knippenberg, 2011). Given this call to action (or one could say burden of responsibility), I have taken it upon myself to pull together some thoughts on what I believe authors should be striving for in producing meta-analyses, as well as trying to provide a roadmap for authors who are considering submitting a meta-analysis to OPR. What I will not be doing is providing a treatise on the mechanics of conducting a metaanalysis, as there are a multitude of books, articles, and other training materials that do a better job than I could ever hope to do.
Stephen E. Humphrey (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: