Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

Cobblers, let's stick to our lasts! A song of sorrow (and of hope) about the state of personnel and human resource management science

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels)

Contextual Undertow of Workplace Deviance by and Within Units: A Systematic Review

Within the constellation of employee misconduct, workplace deviance possesses the somewhat distinctive feature of violating organizational norms. Yet, the burgeoning research examining the social context surrounding workplace deviance typically fails to properly account for it. Interdisciplinary research has demonstrated that within organizations (a) multiple reference groups provide descriptive and injunctive norms about (in)appropriate behavior; (b) even when embedded within the organizational hierarchy, norms are not necessarily consistent across these groups; and (c) the immediate reference group often exerts a crucial influence. Against this background, we discuss prevalent conceptualizations of workplace deviance and systematically review the literature from 1995 to 2017. We present our findings according to external and organizational, leadership, and intraunit antecedents of workplace deviance by and within units, distinguishing, in particular, unit composition, processes and emergent states, climates, and norms. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and methodological avenues for future research

Gone fishin’: Addressing completeness, accuracy, and representativeness in the search and coding processes of meta-analyses in the organizational sciences

No research question is compelling enough nor a meta-analytic procedure advanced enough to overcome an ineffectual search or inaccurate coding process. The bulk of attention towards meta-analyses conducted within the organizational sciences has been directed at establishing the types of research questions meta-analyses are best equipped to address and how best to go about analyzing secondary data. However, the meta-analytic process requires rigor and transparency at every step. It is too often the case that the search and coding are non-systematic, resulting in a deficient and/or contaminated dataset and, ultimately, not an accurate reflection of the extant literature. Using the analogy of a fishing trip where fish are available studies and the oceans, lakes, and rivers are the sources of data, we highlight best practices and offer actionable takeaways in conducting and reporting a thorough and representative search and accurate and inclusive coding process for meta-analyses in the organizational sciences

The “Goldilocks Zone”: (Too) many confidence intervals in tests of mediation just exclude zero

Questionable research practices (QRPs) can occur whenever one result is favored over another, and tests of mediation are no exception. Given mediation's ubiquity and importance to both theory and practice, QRPs in tests of mediation pose a serious threat to the advancement of psychology. We investigate this issue through the introduction of a straightforward means of detecting the presence and magnitude of QRPs in tests of mediation and validate this methodology with a series of sensitivity tests and simulations. We then apply this method to 2,569 tests of mediation published in five leading psychology journals in 2018 and 2019. We find that despite most hypothesized tests of mediation being likely underpowered, most (76%) were nevertheless supported. Furthermore, confidence intervals (CIs) that just barely exclude zero are 3.6 to 4.4 times as prevalent as those CIs that just barely include zero. We also find a number of study- and test-level factors, such as whether the test of mediation was hypothesized, explain both whether the CI excluded zero (odds ratio [OR] = 17.87, p < .001) as well as the CI's proximity to zero (b = .27, p < .001). In addition, other factors, most notably sample size, do predict the CI's proximity to zero (γ = .00, p < .001), but surprisingly do not predict the CI's exclusion of zero (OR = .99, p = .803). We conclude with actionable QRP curtailment strategies so that both, academics and practitioners, can have greater and well-founded confidence in tests of mediation in psychological research

How well are open science practices implemented in industrial and organizational psychology and management?

To address the low reproducibility and replicability of research, Open Science Practices (OSPs) have been developed. Yet, despite increasing awareness of their potential benefits, there has been only little implementation. As journals can act as gatekeepers for scientific discoveries, a potential tendency not to mention OSPs on their websites may help to explain this implementation gap. Therefore, we examined the implementation of OSPs and potential barriers in industrial and organizational psychology and management (IOP/management) journals. Study 1 examined whether and how N = 257 journal websites referred to OSPs. We found that most journals did not mention OSPs. Specifically, only two (1.0%), five (2.5%), and 14 (6.9%) IOP/management journals mentioned preregistration, registered reports, and explicitly welcomed replications, respectively. Study 2 investigated perceived barriers to implementing OSPs with a survey among editors of the IOP/management journals from Study 1. Among the 40 responding editors, 14, 10, and five attributed the lacking implementation of OSPs to a lesser suitability of OSPs for qualitative research, missing authority, and missing familiarity with OSPs, respectively. Based on our findings, the implementation gap could be mitigated by developing new and refining extant OSPs, starting bottom-up initiatives (e.g., researchers directly contacting publishers), and increasing the availability of information on OSPs

Multiple loci on 8q24 associated with prostate cancer susceptibility

Previous studies have identified multiple loci on 8q24 associated with prostate cancer risk. We performed a comprehensive analysis of SNP associations across 8q24 by genotyping tag SNPs in 5,504 prostate cancer cases and 5,834 controls. We confirmed associations at three previously reported loci and identified additional loci in two other linkage disequilibrium blocks (rs1006908: per-allele OR = 0.87, P = 7.9 x 10(-8); rs620861: OR = 0.90, P = 4.8 x 10(-8)). Eight SNPs in five linkage disequilibrium blocks were independently associated with prostate cancer susceptibility

Identification of seven new prostate cancer susceptibility loci through a genome-wide association study

Prostate cancer (PrCa) is the most frequently diagnosed male cancer in developed countries. To identify common PrCa susceptibility alleles, we have previously conducted a genome-wide association study in which 541, 129 SNPs were genotyped in 1,854 PrCa cases with clinically detected disease and 1,894 controls. We have now evaluated promising associations in a second stage, in which we genotyped 43,671 SNPs in 3,650 PrCa cases and 3,940 controls, and a third stage, involving an additional 16,229 cases and 14,821 controls from 21 studies. In addition to previously identified loci, we identified a further seven new prostate cancer susceptibility loci on chromosomes 2, 4, 8, 11, and 22 (P=1.6×10−8 to P=2.7×10−33)