Method Variance From the Perspectives of Reviewers: Poorly Understood Problem or Overemphasized Complaint?

Abstract

Beliefs and practices regarding common method variance (CMV) were surveyed from a sample of top journal board members. Results indicated that reviewers frequently mentioned CMV concerns and believed that addressing this issue in the design stage was more effective than postdata approaches. Although there was little consensus regarding whether concerns about CMV would cause them to recommend rejection of manuscripts, reviewers generally agreed that some variables were more likely than others to be affected by CMV and that a simple focus on the method of measurement was not adequate for determining whether CMV caused problems with the interpretation of study results. Slight differences were observed across journals and were related to participant experience.