Discussion: View Thread

Call for Brief Proposals: REPLICATIONS of Counterproductive Work Behavior Research

  • 1.  Call for Brief Proposals: REPLICATIONS of Counterproductive Work Behavior Research

    Posted 13 days ago

    Hi folks,


    Apologies for cross-postings!


    Together with my colleagues Dr. Sandy Lim and Dr. Jaclyn Jensen, I'll be editing the Handbook of Counterproductive Work Behavior, which will be published by Edward Elgar Publishing. In that context, we're planning to include one or possibly two chapters involving replications of research on counterproductive work behavior.


    If you're interested in contributing a chapter on this topic, we'd love to hear from you! To that end, please consider this email a Call for Proposals (brief ones!). By October 1, 2022, could you please send us the following information?


    • Author CVs. You would be most welcome to include a coauthor (or if necessary two) of your choice-for instance, a colleague or a graduate student-but please include the CVs of all proposed authors.
    • Brief description of the authors' prior experience, if any, in the area of replications. Prior experience is a plus but its absence is by no means a deal-breaker.
    • A chapter plan (2-3 pages) containing the following information:
      • A full American Psychological Association Style reference for the published counterproductive work behavior-focused journal article the authors propose to replicate. Note that counterproductive work behavior should be a main focus of, rather than merely one construct among many in, the study being replicated.
      • A rationale for why it is necessary or desirable to replicate that article in particular.
      • Whether the replication will be direct/exact or conceptual. Either is fine, but please explain your choice. Indicate how similar your proposed sample (in terms of the nature of participants and the context in which they will be studied), other study design features, and data-analytic techniques will be to those in the journal article being replicated. To be clear, we are very open to well-justified differences. For instance, additional sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of results would be welcome.
      • The a priori standards that will be used to determine whether the replication is "successful."
      • The sample size that will be used for the replication study. If possible, please also summarize the results of a power analysis and/or other information (e.g., commonly used rules of thumb) relevant to sample size.
      • Whether the research will be pre-registered and a priori hypotheses and research questions, de-identified data, and code posted online (e.g., via the Open Science Framework) for the benefit of readers. If the answer is "no," please explain why not.
      • Any additional best practices associated with replication that will be incorporated.
      • An explicit undertaking that the replication will adopt a civil and constructive tone toward the journal article being replicated.


    Please send the above information to all the editors (i.e., rdalal@gmu.edu, sandylim@nus.edu.sg, and jjense10@depaul.edu). We will respond within a few weeks with constructive feedback and information regarding whether we will be able to incorporate your proposed chapter in the handbook.


    Here is some additional information about the handbook:


    Once the handbook is published, each contributing author may choose to receive either one hardback copy of the handbook or else one complimentary digital copy of the handbook along with a PDF of their own chapter.


    We have set June 15, 2023, as the due date for submitting the full draft of each chapter, giving you ample time to think, collect data, and write. Chapters should be 8,000-10,000 words in length all inclusive, and should include the following elements:

    • title
    • abstract (150-word limit)
    • keywords (up to 6 key words or phrases)
    • "body" of the chapter
    • endnotes (as opposed to footnotes)
    • references (which should be in American Psychological Association Style)
    • tables (with each table counting as the equivalent of 300 words)
    • figures (with each figure counting as the equivalent of 500 words).


    After receiving and reviewing the draft of your chapter, we may request revisions aimed at correcting any errors and at improving clarity and organization as well as fit with the overall handbook. We are planning for final versions of the chapters to be due in January 2024.


    Please let us know if you have any questions!



    Reeshad (on behalf of the editor team)

    Reeshad Dalal, Ph.D.
    Professor, Industrial and Organizational Psychology
    George Mason University
    Fairfax, VA 22030-4444