As meta-analytic studies have come to occupy a sizable contingent of published work in the psychological sciences, clarity in the research and reporting practices of such work is crucial to the interpretability and reproducibility of research findings. The present study examines the state of research and reporting practices within a random sample of 384 published psychological meta-analyses across several important dimensions (e.g., search methods, exclusion criteria, statistical techniques). In addition, we surveyed the first authors of the meta-analyses in our sample to ask them directly about the research practices employed and reporting decisions made in their studies, including the assessments and procedures they conducted and the guidelines or materials they relied on. Upon cross-validating the first author responses with what was reported in their published meta-analyses, we identified numerous potential gaps in reporting and research practices. In addition to providing a survey of recent reporting practices, our findings suggest that (a) there are several research practices conducted by meta-analysts that are ultimately not reported; (b) some aspects of meta-analysis research appear to be conducted at disappointingly low rates; and (c) the adoption of the reporting standards, including the Meta-Analytic Reporting Standards (MARS), has been slow to nonexistent within psychological meta-analytic research.

由于荟萃分析研究已经占据了心理学科学领域已发表工作的相当大一部分，因此此类工作的研究和报告实践的清晰性对于研究结果的可解释性和可再现性至关重要。本研究在384个已发布的心理学荟萃分析的随机样本中，对几个重要维度（例如，搜索方法，排除标准，统计技术）的随机样本进行了研究。此外，我们对样本中荟萃分析的第一作者进行了调查，以直接询问他们所采用的研究实践和报告其研究中做出的决定，包括他们进行的评估和程序以及所依靠的指南或材料。在对第一作者的回答与他们发表的荟萃分析中所报告的内容进行交叉验证后，我们发现了报告和研究实践中的许多潜在空白。除了提供对最近报告实践的调查之外，我们的发现还表明：（a）有一些由荟萃分析家进行的研究实践最终并未被报告；（b）荟萃分析研究的某些方面似乎以令人失望的低比率进行；（c）在心理荟萃研究中，采用包括Meta-Analytic Reporting Standards（MARS）在内的报告标准的速度很慢，甚至根本不存在。我们的研究结果表明：（a）有一些由荟萃分析师进行的研究实践最终没有被报道；（b）荟萃分析研究的某些方面似乎以令人失望的低比率进行；（c）在心理荟萃分析研究中，采用包括Meta-Analytic Reporting Standards（MARS）在内的报告标准的步伐缓慢甚至不存在。我们的研究结果表明：（a）有一些由荟萃分析师进行的研究实践最终没有被报道；（b）荟萃分析研究的某些方面似乎以令人失望的低比率进行；（c）在心理荟萃分析研究中，采用包括Meta-Analytic Reporting Standards（MARS）在内的报告标准的步伐缓慢甚至不存在。