Pone 0260653

PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The impact of factors on information sharing:

An application of meta-analysis
Chau Thi Diem Le1,2☯, Miklós Pakurár1, István András Kun3, Judit Oláh ID4,5☯*
1 Institute of Applied Informatics and Logistics, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary, 2 Quality
Assurance Department, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology-HCM Vietnam National University, Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam, 3 Institute of Management and Organization Sciences, University of Debrecen,
Debrecen, Hungary, 4 Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary,
5 College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
☯ These authors contributed equally to this work.

* olah.judit@econ.unideb.hu
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Background
Information sharing plays a key role in supply chain performance. According to previous indi-
vidual studies, technology, trust, commitment, and uncertainty are four potential factors
affecting information sharing. However, most studies focus on testing a positive relationship
OPEN ACCESS
between each factor and information sharing. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the
Citation: Diem Le CT, Pakurár M, Kun IA, Oláh J effect of each factor on information sharing.
(2021) The impact of factors on information
sharing: An application of meta-analysis. PLoS
ONE 16(12): e0260653. https://doi.org/10.1371/ Objective
journal.pone.0260653
To determine the accurate effect of factors on sharing information and propose key factors
Editor: Yuriy Bilan, Rzeszow University of to support decision-makers in improving their information sharing.
Technology: Politechnika Rzeszowska im Ignacego
Lukasiewicza, POLAND
Data
Received: July 17, 2021
Correlation coefficients between factors are collected from 41 individual studies with a total
Accepted: November 13, 2021
of 8,983 samples on Google Scholar
Published: December 22, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Diem Le et al. This is an open Methods

access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which Using the rank correlation test and Egger’s regression test to test publication bias. The
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and meta-analysis method is used to perform analysis models, including fixed-effect, random-
reproduction in any medium, provided the original effect, and Hunter and Schmidt methods
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: Data are available on

Results
Kaggle (https://doi.org/10.34740/kaggle/dsv/
2744946). Commitment plays the most important role in information sharing when compared to tech-
Funding: The author(s) received no specific nology, trust, and uncertainty. Commitment accounts for 19% in the Hunter and Schmidt
funding for this work. method and 22% in both fixed-effect and random-effect models. In addition, the result indi-
Competing interests: The authors have declared cates that there are around 50% of other factors that affect the efficiency of sharing informa-
that no competing interests exist. tion besides four factors in our studies.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 1 / 24

PLOS ONE The impact of factors on information sharing
Conclusion
Technology, trust, and commitment significantly affect information sharing, of which the
impact of commitment on information sharing is strongest and should be a priority in improv-
ing the effectiveness of information sharing. Our study contributes two findings to literature
in the field of supply chain information sharing: 1) certain confirming the important role of
commitment on sharing information, and 2) the necessity of considering other factors
besides these four elements.
Introduction
“Information sharing (IS)” refers to the activity of exchanging good-quality information or
knowledge among partners who work collaboratively as a single entity in the supply chain [1].
Thus, the term “information sharing” may be known as “knowledge sharing” or “information
integration” [2]. Information sharing seems to be the heart of connection in the supply chain
[3]. It brings many benefits to each supply chain member in particular and the whole supply
chain in general [4]. Lotfi et al. [5] point out that information sharing reduces supply chain
vulnerability. According to Gavirneni et al. [6] supplier’s costs dropped 1–35% by sharing
inventory information. Lee and Whang [7] and Lee et al. [8] demonstrate that exchanging
information among supply chain members may decrease both inventory and associated costs
significantly. Besides, the effect of uncertainty in the supply chain reduces significantly due to
sharing information among partners [9]. Uncertainty is a consequence of lacking information,
which creates the bullwhip effect in the supply chain. The information flows, exchanged
among supply chain members, strongly limit the negative impact of the bullwhip effect [10].
Furthermore, information sharing also helps to improve resource utilization [11], the effi-
ciency of products and services [12], and the quick response under the change of market [13],
as well as increasing social relationships [7].
Technology, trust, commitment, and uncertainty are four potential factors that are indi-
cated their importance with information sharing by many previous individual studies. Khur-
ana et al. [14] demonstrate that technology or technological capacity is a key barrier to
information sharing. Omar et al. [15] confirm the positive impact of technology on informa-
tion sharing. Technological linkages are particularly critical to transfer information flows
among supply chain members effectively [16], and a poor technology significantly affects the
information transmission process even interrupts the movement of information among stake-
holders in the supply chain [17]. However, the support of technology may be ineffective with-
out each firm’s willingness to share information [18]. The willingness of sharing information
is defined as an openness attitude of individuals to exchange the necessary information to sup-
ply chain partners honestly, enthusiastically, and reliably [19]. Zaheer and Trkman [20] and
Wu et al. [21] indicate that trust and commitment are two main factors in the willingness to
share information. Trust is defined as a term of the perceived reliability and honesty among
stakeholders [22, 23]. Commitment is described as a promise or agreement which is towards a
long-term and enduring relationship [24]. Finally, Şahin and Topal [25] indicate that informa-
tion sharing is affected by uncertainty. Uncertainty is described as competition uncertainty,
the change of technology, demand fluctuations, and the uncertainty of suppliers and customers
[26]. However, almost all previous studies only consider the relationship of one factor or two
factors on information sharing (Table 1). For example, Li et al. [27] only consider the relation-
ship between trust and information sharing. Technology and uncertainty are introduced by

Table 1. The methods and hypotheses of the relationships between factors and information sharing in previous studies.
Author Hypothesis Factor Method
Arnold et al. [30] Positive relationship Commitment Primary analysis
Aragón-Correa et al. [31] Positive relationship Uncertainty Primary analysis
Baihaqi and Sohal. [32] Positive relationship Technology Primary analysis
Cai et al. [33] Positive relationship Trust Primary analysis
Idris and Mohezar [34] Positive relationship Technology and commitment Primary analysis
Li et al. [27] Positive relationship Trust Primary analysis
Sheko and Braimllari [35] Positive relationship Technology Primary analysis
Somjai and Jermsittiparsert [36] Positive relationship Technology and commitment Primary analysis
Sundram et al. [28] Positive relationship Technology and uncertainty Primary analysis
Wong et al. [29] Positive relationship Technology Primary analysis
Ye and Wang [37] Positive relationship Technology Primary analysis
Zhong et al. [38] Positive relationship Trust and commitment Primary analysis
Source: Authors’ summary review (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653.t001
Sundram et al. [28]. Wong et al. [29] indicate that technology has a positive relationship with
information sharing. Besides, almost all previous studies determine the positive influence or
relationship between factors and information sharing. They mainly use primary analysis to
find the answer to their research questions. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the influence
of all four factors on information sharing, compare and determine which factors have the
strongest influence on information sharing.
In this study, all four elements: trust, technology, commitment, and uncertainty are consid-
ered. The aim of this study is to determine the accurate influence of factors on information
sharing. From that, keys factors are proposed to support decision-makers in improving their
information sharing. The method of meta-analysis is used in this study. The term “meta-analy-
sis” is as known as a quantitative research approach to summarize, analyze, and compare
results from the empirical literature. Unlike primary analysis and secondary analysis, meta-
analysis statistically analyzes the results of multiple studies instead of one study. Hence, its
results are inferences drawn from a sample of studies. In addition, its results are the form of
effect sizes. These effect sizes are usually calculated from data published in papers, which
means that the raw data is non-obligatory. Correlation coefficients are used to compute the
effect sizes in our study. Correlation coefficients are collected from 41 relevant individual stud-
ies obtaining a total of 8,983 samples. Our results show that commitment plays a key role in
sharing information when compared with trust, technology, and uncertainty. This conclusion
is our contribution to the literature on the supply chain field. In addition, our study also
emphasizes that there are many other factors influencing information sharing that should be
considered.
Methodology
Definition
Technology. Technology or information technology refers to the activities of storing,
retrieving, transmitting, and manipulating data or information in computers. Information
technology plays a key role in supply chain management in general and in sharing information
in particular [15]. The roles of information technology are introduced by numerous previous
studies. Rajaguru and Matanda [39] identify that the role of information technology is as an
inter-organizational information system. They link individual information technologies to

transfer information between supply chain members effectively. Similarly, Ye and Wang [37]
introduce the term information technology alignment to describe the connectivity and com-
patibility of the information technology infrastructure in the supply chain. Term of IT infra-
structure presents a physical connection to support information exchange among partners
[20]. Finally, IT enablers are relevant technologies and/or equipment to increase the transmis-
sion speed, accuracy, and security during the whole process of sharing information in the sup-
ply chain [40]. Thus, IT conceptualization mainly focuses on information connections and
technological supports in sharing information [34].
Trust. Trust is defined as a term of the perceived reliability and honesty among stakehold-
ers [41–43]. Trust is also known as a reliable expectation that an organization brings to its part-
ners to fulfill obligations based on their cooperation [44, 45]. Trust is bidirectional in ensuring
integrity among supply chain members [46]. For instance, customers trust suppliers to deliver
their products on time and providing an agreed price. Equally, suppliers believe that their cus-
tomers complete payments in line with agreed terms.
Commitment. “Commitment is defined as the desire on the part of each party to a busi-
ness relationship to maintain and strengthen that relationship” [44]. A business relationship is
described as a connection between entities engaged in commercial activities. That consists of
the relationships between different relevant individuals in any business network [47]. Allen
and Meyer [48] indicate that commitment obtains the aspects of affection and continuation.
This means that each member in a committed relationship is willing to lose short-term benefits
to maintain a long-term relationship [49]. Similarly, in the supply chain, the term of commit-
ment is known as a promise or agreement formed a long-term and active relationship between
supply chain members during the process of working together [24]. Supply chain members are
willing to contribute some business benefits to a sustainable relationship [50, 51].
Uncertainty. Uncertainty is defined as “the difficulty firms have in predicting the future”
[52]. The uncertain change of environment refers to “the extent to which future states of the
world cannot be anticipated and accurately predicted” [53]. The uncertainty may be divided
into four terms of uncertain source [26]: 1) competition uncertainty is the result of competitive
interdependence [54], 2) technology uncertainty–the continuous and rapid development of
technology [55], 3) the fluctuation of customer demand [56, 57], and 4) uncertainty coming
from external organizations such as suppliers and customers [40].
Hypothesis development
In our study, the most common areas derive from selected publications. They are the relation-
ships between technology and information sharing, trust and information sharing, commit-
ment and information sharing, and uncertainty and information sharing. Based on hypotheses
from relevant studies reviewed and examined in the meta-analysis, our hypotheses are formed.
Hypothesis 1: The more trust, the more effective information sharing is
Panahifar et al. [58] emphasize the important role of trust in sharing information. Informa-
tion exchange becomes more free and reliable when individuals have a high trust relationship.
This statement is similar to the conclusion found by Cai et al. [33] that confirm the positive
influence of trust on sharing information between Chinese firms and their suppliers. Similarly,
Khan et al. [59] indicate that trust and information sharing have a positive relationship when
they research the sustainability of service supply chain management. In addition, trust signifi-
cantly affects the extent of information sharing [60]. Open and honest information sharing
will improve information asymmetry among partners and enhance long-term cooperation
[61].
Hypothesis 2: Information technology has a positive influence on information sharing

In information sharing, technology plays a key role in empowering companies to access or

exchange information [15]. Besides, it seems to be a bridge to connect individual information
technologies to form an information network [39]. This leads to the efficiency of communica-
tion between firms by receiving high-quality information and the rapid time of exchange [62].
Thus, the relationship between technology and information becomes more closely. Somjai and
Jermsittiparsert [36] indicate that the ability of technology directly affects information sharing.
The effect of technology on information sharing is positive [34]. Sundram et al. [28] also pro-
vide similar conclusions about the positive effect of technology and information sharing after
doing an investigation of factors affecting supply chain integration
Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relationship between commitment and information
sharing
Commitment is a fundamental foundation of developing a close and sustainable relation-
ship or cooperation [63]. Besides, a close relationship increases the efficiency of sharing infor-
mation [64]. As a result, increasing commitment among partners drives the strong growth of
sharing information [30], and the effect of commitment on information sharing is positive in
the supply chain [21]. This means that supply chain partners will not willing to exchange infor-
mation without commitment [38]. In logistics integration, similarly, there is a linear relation-
ship between commitment and information sharing [36]. Idris and Mohezar [34] confirm that
commitment affects information sharing positively in logistics integration.
Hypothesis 4: The higher the degree of uncertainty, the stronger the level of information
sharing
Uncertainty significantly influences on sharing of information in the supply chain [25]. To
face the fluctuations of the environment, supply chain members have a tendency to cooperate
with each other by increasing information sharing [65]. This leads to the formulation of a hypoth-
esis about the positive effect of uncertainty on information sharing [66]. Similarly, Li and Lin [40]
form the hypothesis that when the level of uncertainty is higher, information sharing tends to
increase sharply. Based on the results of an investigation, Jia et al. [67] indicate that the uncertainty
drives the strong development of sharing information between supply chain members.
Publication selection strategy and publication bias tests

A systematic literature review of studies about information sharing in the supply chain is per-
formed. Search terms related to information sharing or information exchange are used to find
publications from 2010 to March 2021 on Google Scholar. They include the terms "informa-
tion sharing" and "supply chain", "exchanging information" and "supply chain", “factors” and
“information sharing” and “supply chain”, “factors” and “information exchange” and “supply
chain”, “potential factors” and “information sharing” and “supply chain”, or “common factors”
and “information sharing” and “supply chain”. Selected publications based on different criteria
in each step. First of all, after reviewing the title and keywords in the article, duplicate articles
and omitted search terms about information sharing or supply chain will be removed. Second,
the full abstract of articles is considered carefully. A suitable abstract consists of 1) relating to
sharing information in the supply chain field and 2) providing completely the objective, meth-
odology, and conclusion. Third, all sections of the paper are fully reviewed to select the articles
entirely in English and consider the relationship between factors and information sharing.
Finally, suitable articles for this study are selected. This selection depends on criteria, including
1) belonging to the area of information sharing in the supply chain, 2) introducing factors
affecting information sharing, and 3) containing correlation coefficient and sample size.
To test publication bias, the funnel plot, the rank correlation test, and Egger’s regression
test are proposed [68]. “Funnel plots are simple scatterplots of the treatment effects estimated

from individual studies against a measure of study size [69]”. The rank correlation test and
Egger’s regression test are used to evaluate the relationship between effect estimates and sam-
pling variances. In both the rank correlation test and Egger’s regression test, if the p-value is
less than 0.05, the funnel plot is asymmetric. Unlike the rank correlation test, Egger’s regres-
sion test is a good candidate for smaller meta-analyses (less than 25 studies) [70, 71]. In this
study, therefore, Egger’s regression test is selected to test publication bias, and this process is
performed by Rstudio–Rx64 4.3.0
In this study, initially searching for relevant publications is mainly conducted by one author
(Chau Thi Diem Le). Then, all candidate articles are read, checked their suitability with stated
criteria, and selected suitable articles for analyzing models in this study by three authors (Chau
Thi Diem Le, Miklós Pakurár, and Judit Oláh). In some cases, if there are any disagreements,
they will be solved by discussing with the fourth investigator (István András Kun).
Data selection
Based on meta-analysis methods [72–75], correlation indicators between the most common
factors and information sharing are searched for. These factors include trust, technology, com-
mitment, and uncertainty. The required correlation indicators are mainly collected from the
correlation matrix in relevant studies. These relevant studies are mainly published in high-
quality journals such as Supply Chain Management: Decision Sciences, Computers & Indus-
trial Engineering, Operations Management Research, Industrial Marketing Management,
International Journal of Production Research, Journal of Operations Management, Interna-
tional Journal of Supply Chain Management, so on. As a result of selection, 41 relevant indi-
vidual studies are involved in our study [21, 24, 28, 29, 31, 33–38, 55, 59–61, 67, 76–99]. These
41 studies obtain 8,983 observations used for further analysis. According to the measure of the
fail-safe number [100], these number of observations are enough ability to provide reliable
results in our study. Our data are shown in Table 2 and are available on Kaggle (https://doi.
org/10.34740/kaggle/dsv/2744946)
Meta-analysis
Meta-analysis refers to a quantitative research method to synthesize and compare results of the
empirical literature [101]. Especially, “meta-analysis is a statistical tool for estimating the mean
and variance of underlying population effects from a collection of empirical studies addressing
ostensibly the same research question” [100]. Unlike primary and secondary analysis, meta-
analysis has some highlight differences in data and conclusions. In a meta-analysis, the statisti-
cal results from multiple studies of an event are summarized, analyzed, and compared quanti-
tatively. Hence, its conclusions are inferences drawn from a sample of studies [102]. In
addition, the data in meta-analysis is collected completely from the statistical results of multi-
ple studies. Thus, the original data is non-obligatory in meta-analysis while it is the most
important element in the primary and secondary analysis [103].
Field and Gillett [100] propose six steps to perform a meta-analysis, as follows: 1) Searching
for publications, 2) Evaluating the suitability of publications by the criteria of the study, 3)
Computation of effect size, 4) Implementing basic meta-analysis, 5) Performing in-depth anal-
ysis, and 6) Reporting results. According to Glass [102], two methods are popular in meta-
analysis: 1) “fixed-effect model” and “random-effect model” are developed by Hedges and col-
leagues [72–74], and 2) “Hunter and Schmidt method” [75].
Field [104] indicates that the transformation or no transformation of correlation coefficient
and the weights of study create the difference between methods. In the “Hunter and Schmidt
method”, Hunter and Schmidt [75] propose some equations to calculate the mean effect size,

Table 2. Correlation and partial correlation coefficient between factors and information sharing in relevant studies.
# Study N Technology Trust Commitment Uncertainty
r r’ r r’ r r’ r r’
1 Abdullah and Musa [61] 232 0.5 0.14 0.57 0.36
2 Afshan et al. [76] 166 0.22 -0.03
3 Aragón-Correa et al.[31] 164 0.26 0.26
4 Arnold et al. [30] 207 0.76 0.60
5 Cai et al. [33] 398 0.72 0.71
6 Cao et al. [77] 136 0.56
7 Chen et al. [78] 226 0.74 0.53
8 Eckerd and Hill [79] 110 0.69 0.67
9 Gharakhani et al. [55] 186 0.42 0.52
10 Gonzálvez-Gallego et al. [80] 102 0.31
11 Gunasekaran et al. [81] 205 0.23 0.21
12 Hu et al. [82] 128 0.63 0.50
13 Huo et al. [83] 361 0.44
14 Idris and Mohezar [34] 177 0.59 0.42 0.53 0.43
15 Jia et al. [67] 225 0.55 0.55 0.42 0.40
16 Kalyar et al. [84] 61 0.44 0.27
17 Kang and Moon [85] 122 0.44 0.54
18 Khan et al. [86] 218 0.15 0.08
19 Khan et al. [59] 248 0.31 0.27 0.31 0.26
20 Kulangara et al. [87] 357 0.52 0.49
21 Lee and Fernando [24] 133 0.58 0.68
22 Li et al. [88] 212 0.12
23 Raza et al. [89] 391 0.44
24 Sheko and Braimllari [35] 183 0.2 0.24
25 Somjai and Jermsittiparsert [36] 220 0.77 0.43 0.82 0.72
26 Sundram et al. [28] 112 0.32 0.42 0.54 0.43
27 Tong and Crosno [90] 165 0.43 0.6
28 Üstündağ and Ungan [91] 119 0.1 0.02
29 Vankireddy and Baral [92] 80 0.35
30 Vanpoucke et al. [93] 563 0.3
31 Wang et al. [60] 272 0.40 0.42 0.32 -0.12 -0.07
32 Wei et al. [94] 215 0.51
33 Wiengarten and Longoni [95] 485 -0.04 -0.05
34 Wong et al. [29] 238 0.66 0.32
35 Wu et al. [21] 177 0.4 0.30 0.39 0.31
36 Yang [96] 137 0.35 0.46
37 Ye and Wang [37] 141 0.37 0.20
38 Yim and Leem [97] 420 0.29 0.32
39 Youn et al. [98] 141 0.48
40 Zailani et al. [99] 129 0.86 0.58 0.68
41 Zhong et al. [38] 421 0.31 0.09 0.02
Observations (N): 8,983
Source: Collected data summary (2021). # is the ordinal number. N is the number of samples.
r is correlation coefficient. r’ is partial correlation.

the squared standard deviation of weighted sample, interval estimation, and the homogeneity
of effect size. This is described clearly by equations, as follows:
• The mean effect size:
X
k
ni ri
i¼1
�r ¼ ð1Þ
X
k
ni
i¼1
Whereas k is the number of studies, ni is the total of sample of study i, ri is the correlation
coefficient between two variables of study i
• The squared standard deviation of weighted sample:
X
k
2
ni ðri �r Þ
i¼1
s2r ¼ ð2Þ
X
k
ni
i¼1
Whereas k is the number of studies, ni is the total of sample of study i, ri is the correlation
coefficient between two variables of study i, �r is the mean effect size
• Interval estimation:
qffiffiffiffiffi
�r � za=2 s2r ð3Þ
X
k
ni
2 2
2 2 ð1 �r Þ � i¼1
Whereas �r is the mean effect size; s ¼ s r r � 1 with N ¼ ð4Þ
N k
• The homogeneity of effect size:
X
k
ðn 1Þðri �r Þ
2
i
w2 ¼ 2 ð5Þ
i¼1 ð1 �r 2 Þ
Hedges and colleagues, equations are formed to calculate Fisher’s z values, the transformed
effect size, variance, and the homogeneity of effect sizes in their methods. Eqs (6)–(12) are
used for the fixed-effect model, and Eqs (13)–(16) are to calculate the values in the random-
effect model.
Fixed-effect model:
• Fisher’s z values:
� �
1 þ ri
zri ¼ 0:5 � ln ð6Þ
1 ri
Whereas ri is the correlation coefficient between two variables of study i

• The transformed effect size:
X
k
w i zri
i¼1
�z r ¼ ð7Þ
X
k
wi
i¼1
X
k
ðni 3Þzri
i¼1
Whereas wi is the weight of study i; wi ¼ ni 3; so �z r ¼ ð8Þ
X
k
ðni 3Þ
i¼1
• Sampling variance of the average effect size:

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u 1
SEðz�r Þ ¼ u k ð9Þ
uX
t wi
i¼1
• The variance at Fisher’s z value:
1
ni ¼ ð10Þ
ni 3
• The standard error:

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u 1
SEðz�r Þ ¼ u k ð11Þ
uX
t ðn 3Þ
i
i¼1
• Chi-square statistics:
X
k
Q¼ ðni 3Þðzri �z r Þ2 ð12Þ
i¼1
Random-effect model:
X
k
w�i zri
i¼1
�z r ¼ ð13Þ
X
k
�
w i
i¼1

� � 1
1
w�i ¼ þ t2 ð14Þ
ni 3
Q ðk 1Þ
t2 ¼ ð15Þ
C
X
k
2
ðni 3Þ
X
k
i¼1
C¼ ðni 3Þ ð16Þ
i¼1
X
k
ðni 3Þ
i¼1
In two methods proposed by Hunter and Schmidt and Hedges and colleagues, the calcula-
tion of effect size is required. The effect size is the currency in a meta-analysis, which also
reflects the large size of the relationship strength between the two variables in a population.
The measure of effect sizes may be based on mean, risk ratio, odds ratios, risk difference, and
correlation [68, 75, 100]. In our study, the application of three models of Hunter and Schmidt
and Hedges and colleagues is performed. The effect sizes represent the relationship between
information sharing and each factor. The correlation coefficient is used as a measure between
these relationships. Eq (1) is used to compute effect size in Hunter and Schmidt method. Simi-
larly, effect sizes are also calculated by Eqs (6) and (13) in the method of Hedges and col-
leagues. In particular, the correlation coefficient is often transformed to Fisher’s Zr to perform
analysis and comparison in meta-analysis [68]. The reason for the transformation process is
that the sampling distribution r is skewed around a given population ρ. By contrast, the sample
of Zr is symmetrical around a population Zr. The symmetry of the sample of Zr need to per-
form the comparison and combination of effect size across studies [74]. Other equations are
additional equations supporting the further coding process.
In this study, the overall process is also followed by six steps of Field and Gillett [100].
Firstly, keywords are used to find publications. Then, the criteria of study are formed to select
suitable publications. The formulation of criteria is based on our objective evaluation. Next,
the correlation coefficient and the population correlation coefficient are used to calculate effect
size and other values in models [75, 100]. Fifthly, the goodness of study is measured to deter-
mine the reliability of the meta-analysis [75, 105, 106]. According to Rosenthal [107], this mea-
sure is performed by Eq (17) determining the fail-safe number. “The fail-safe number
represents the number of studies required to refute significant meta-analytic means [108]”. If
the number of studies is larger than the value of fail-safe N when multiplied by five and added
by ten, the number of studies is reliable [100, 106]. Finally, our results are summarized and
written as a complete report.
• The fail-safe number:
!2
X
k
zi
i¼1
Nfs ¼ k ð17Þ
2:706

Fig 1. Publication selections. Source: PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [109].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653.g001
Results
Study selection
By the initial search, there are 750 identifiers of related publications. Subsequently, 310 studies
are excluded for duplication and lack of relevance. Then, 173 articles are not included because
they do not meet one of all of the abstract’s requirements. After reviewing full articles, 107 rele-
vant publications are selected. These studies mainly focus on the relationship between factors
and information sharing in the supply chain. Finally, 47 articles are used to analyze relevant
models in this study because they contain both the necessary information and required data.
Following PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [109], the results of publication selection are described
in Fig 1.
Based on Egger’s regression test, the results of the publication bias test are shown in
Table 3. These results are performed by Rstudio software–Rx64 4.0.3. Table 3 shows that p
Table 3. Publication bias test.

# Factor k p-value
1 Commitment 14 0.86
2 Technology 14 0.99
3 Trust 17 0.67
4 Uncertainty 9 0.14
Source: Analyzed data (2021). k is the number of studies.

Table 4. Correlation coefficient between factors and information sharing.

Factor Hunter and Schmidt Fixed-effect Random-effect
Technology (k = 14) 0.45 0.48 0.50
Trust (k = 17) 0.47 0.49 0.50
Commitment (k = 14) 0.51 0.54 0.55
Uncertainty (k = 9) 0.18 0.19 0.24
values of the four factors range from 0.14 to 0.99 and they are greater than 0.05. Therefore, it is
undoubted that there is no publication bias.
The results of analysis models

Using correlation coefficient. Table 4 shows the results of the correlation coefficient
between factors and information sharing in three models. In particular, Eq (1) is used to find
the correlation coefficient in Hunter & Schmidt column. For the fixed- and random-effect
models, correlation coefficients are calculated by Eq (6). According to Cohen [110], the range
of correlation between factors and information sharing is distributed at small, medium, and
large levels. Particularly, commitment has the largest effect on information sharing while the
relationship between uncertainty and information sharing is lowest in all three models. Mean-
while, the relationship between technology and information sharing and the correlation
between trust and information sharing obtain both moderate and high effects.
On the other hand, the difference between the largest and narrowest values of correlation
coefficient in Hunter & Schmidt, fixed-effect model, and random-effect model is 0.3, 0.4, and
0.3, respectively. This means that there exist other factors besides those considered influencing
information sharing. The impact of our factors on the variance of information sharing is
higher than the effect of other elements in all three models (72% in the Hunter & Schmidt
model, 79% in the fixed-effect model, and 86% in the random-effect model). In which, the
degree of commitment influence on information sharing variance is the highest (26% in
Hunter & Schmidt model, 29% in fixed-effect model, and 31% in random-effect model). The
second and third major influence is trust and technology, respectively. In contrast, the lowest
impact on information sharing variance is uncertainty (3% in Hunter & Schmidt model, 4% in
the fixed-effect model, and 6% in the random-effect model).
The largest effect of information sharing is commitment. The fact remains that commit-
ment is an important key to maintain and develop trust in a relationship [111]. Having a good
or sustainable relationship makes individuals more willing to communicate more informally
with their partners [112]. They can easily exchange more accurate and important information.
This increases the efficiency of information exchange [113]. Next, trust has the second-largest
correlation to information sharing. The role of trust is similar to the commitment which cre-
ates sustainable relationships. However, trust is difficult to measure because its origin is the
behavior of each individual [41] while commitment may be measured thanks to agreements.
This may lead to the lower effect of trust on information sharing when compared with com-
mitment [24]. Thirdly, the effect of technology and trust on information sharing is approxi-
mate. The reason for this may be that technology can be seen as supporting equipment or
bridge the activities of individuals in the supply chain [114]. Therefore, in information sharing,
technology only plays a role as a person who transmits information quickly and accurately
[39]. Finally, the impact of uncertainty on information sharing is the lowest. According to
Fynes et al. [115] and Li et al. [116], good coordination or a close relationship is the main

Table 5. Confidence interval between factors and information sharing.

Factor Hunter and Schmidt Fixed-effect Random-effect
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Technology (k = 14) 0.12 0.78 0.45 0.51 0.21 0.70
Trust (k = 17) 0.19 0.76 0.46 0.51 0.26 0.68
Commitment (k = 14) 0.13 0.88 0.51 0.57 0.24 0.76
Uncertainty (k = 9) -0.25 0.60 0.15 0.23 0.03 0.44
cause to reduce the effect of uncertainties on information sharing [117]. Individuals who own
close relationships or have strong coordination with others may be received special informa-
tion that outsiders cannot access [115, 116].
Calculating confidence intervals is performed to analyze the difference among correlations
[105]. Eq (3) is used to find the confidence interval in Hunter & Schmidt. In the fixed-and ran-
dom-effect model, the calculation of confidence interval is similar. Firstly, the values of �z r and
SEðz�r Þ are used to determine the confidence interval of Fisher’s z values (zri ). Then, Eq (6) is
reversed to transform the value of zri to correlation. Results of the confidence interval are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5 presents that the largest confidence intervals are in Hunter & Schmidt model while
confidence intervals in fixed-effect are the lowest. Confidence interval width describes a great
variety of articles. Under Hunter & Schmidt model, the larger the confidence interval width
proves that more studies are included. However, the situation is reserved under the random-
effect model.
In Table 5, due to the largest confidence intervals, the difference among correlations is ana-
lyzed based on the results in Hunter & Schmidt model. In this model, factors of uncertainty
have a negative value. This means that uncertainty has no effect on information sharing. The
confidence interval width of uncertainty is widest while the confidence interval magnitude of
trust is narrowest. These orders are changing under the random-effect model. The results of
the confidence interval are suitable with the above correlation coefficient results.
According to Borenstein et al. [118] and Walker et al. [119], on the other hand, the confi-
dence interval under the random-effect model is larger than that under the fixed-effect model
because of the heterogeneity of studies. Thus, the homogeneity test is performed in our study.
“It is common to use a test for homogeneity to determine if the results of the several experi-
ments are sufficiently similar to warrant their combination into an overall result [120]”. Eqs 5
and 12 are used in Hunter & Schmidt and the models of Hedges and colleagues, respectively.
Our results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Homogeneity test statistic.

Factor Hunter & Schmidt Fixed -Effect Random-effect
Technology (k = 14) 140.43 208.72 3.12
Trust (k = 17) 155.71 176.93 1.91
Commitment (k = 14) 175.41 213.84 2.18
Uncertainty (k = 9) 111.21 120.77 4.77

Table 7. Partial correlation coefficient.

Factor k Hunter and Schmidt Fixed-effect Random-effect
Technology 8 0.36 0.36 0.37
Trust 12 0.39 0.40 0.38
Commitment 11 0.44 0.46 0.47
Uncertainty 7 0.13 0.13 0.18
Some limits are calculated to find the homogeneity. Based on the Chi-Square probabilities
table, limits are as follows: 22.362 for the technology, 26.296 for the trust, 21.026 for the com-
mitment, and 15.507 for the uncertainty. As a result, the hypothesis of homogeneity cannot be
rejected in the random-effect model while heterogeneity occurs in both Hunter & Schmidt
and the fixed-effect model. Hence, there may be the appearance of an effect in Hunter &
Schmidt and the fixed-effect model unavoidably. In addition, this test result is consistent with
the results of the above confidence intervals–high heterogeneity, wider confidence interval.
Finally, the calculation of the fail-safe number is performed to determine the reliability of
the number of articles using Eq 17. The fail-safe numbers of factors are presented as follows: 1)
technology: 2797 (264 required), 2) trust: 4028 (402 required), 3) commitment: 2481 (314
required), and 4) uncertainty: 2037 (19 required). Therefore, finding too many articles is
unnecessary in research. However, in the case of more studies being added, the relationship
between the factors will be shown more clearly [121].
Using partial correlation coefficient. The relationship between each factor and informa-
tion sharing is further clarified thanks to the calculation of the partial correlation coefficient.
Partial correlation coefficient represents a relationship between independent variable–X and
the dependent variable–Y when eliminating the influence of control variable–Z [75]. The par-
tial correlation coefficient is considered a correlation coefficient when used. Thus, the calcula-
tion of the partial correlation coefficient and the correlation coefficient is similar to each other
(Eq 1).
Table 7 shows the results of the partial correlation coefficient in three models. Factors have
a weak and moderate partial correlation to information sharing [110]. The weakest effect on
information sharing is uncertainty. By contrast, the effect of technology, trust, and commit-
ment on information sharing is stronger in all three models. In particular, the strongest corre-
lation is determined by the relationship between commitment and information sharing. Here,
trust is the second-largest impact on information sharing. The relationship between technol-
ogy and information sharing is weakest when compared to other factors in the moderate
group.
On the other hand, 0.3 is the difference between the largest and smallest partial correlation
coefficient in all three models. This statement leads to the presence of other factors affecting
information sharing. To evaluate the effect of both factors considered and other factors on
information sharing, R-squared is measured. Our factors’ influence on information sharing
variance accounts for 49%, 52%, and 53% in Hunter & Schmidt, fixed-effect model, and ran-
dom-effect model, respectively. Particularly, the commitment influence on information shar-
ing variance is the highest (19% in the Hunter & Schmidt model, 22% in the fixed-effect
model, and 22% in the random-effect model). In contrast, the percentage of uncertainty only
accounts for 2% in both Hunter & Schmidt and the fixed-effect model and 3% in the random-
effect model. The orders of the impact of trust and technology are unchanged-second and
third position, respectively. As a result, the attendance of other factors contributes 51%, 48%,

Fig 2. The effect of factors on information sharing variance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653.g002
and 47% to information sharing variance in Hunter & Schmidt, fixed-effect model, and ran-
dom-effect model, respectively. These results are shown in Fig 2.
The positive effect of commitment on information sharing is explained similarly as above.
The magnitude of the direct effect of trust describes its importance in the field of information
sharing. This conclusion is true because trust brings more efficiency than technology in shar-
ing information.
Based on the confidence interval, the range of most likely values in the population correla-
tion is shown. Besides the calculation of confidence interval shows how real the result is. The
results of the confidence interval are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 shows that the largest confidence intervals are found by Hunter & Schmidt model
while the fixed-effect model provides the smallest confidence intervals. The analysis is focused
Table 8. Results of confidence interval in three models.

Factor Hunter and Schmidt Fixed -Effect Random-effect
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Technology 0.21 0.51 0.31 0.40 0.08 0.60
Trust 0.05 0.51 0.37 0.43 0.11 0.60
Commitment 0.04 0.85 0.43 0.50 0.13 0.71
Uncertainty -0.23 0.49 0.08 0.18 -0.02 0.37

Table 9. Homogeneity test statistic for three models.

Factor Hunter & Schmidt Fixed-effect Random-effect
Technology (k = 8) 20.30 86.18 0.64
Trust (k = 12) 131.32 156.73 2.03
Commitment (k = 11) 133.08 134.02 2.08
Uncertainty (k = 7) 63.70 66.99 4.01
on the value of the Hunter & Schmidt model because of its high confidence intervals. Besides,
there is the appearance of negative value in the relationship between uncertainty and informa-
tion sharing. This may lead to the direct negative impact of them on sharing information.
The diversity of studies is reflected by the magnitude of the confidence interval. Hence, the
test of homogeneity is necessary to measure whether the number of studies involved is homo-
geneous. Table 9 shows the results of the homogeneity test in three models.
Some of the values of limitation are found to decide the homogeneity, including 15.507 for
technology, 19.657 for trust, 16.919 for commitment, and 12.592 for uncertainty. As a result, it
is undoubted that there may be the appearance of heterogeneity in both Hunter & Schmidt
and the fixed-effect model. In contrast, the rejection of homogeneity is not possible in the ran-
dom-effect model. These results seem to be suitable with the results of the confidence interval
test.
In order to find the reliable numbers of articles, finally, the calculation of the fail-safe num-
ber is performed. The results show that our observations are enough reliability to implement
the analysis of three models and draw conclusions. The fail-safe numbers of factors are as fol-
lows: 1) technology: 1452 (65 required), 2) trust: 2903 (183 required), 3) commitment: 1884
(164 required), and 4) uncertainty: 1639 (4 required). Thus, searching for many publications is
non-obligate in research. However, if the publications are further added, the relationship
between the elements will be shown more clearly.
In summary, some critical findings are determined in our study, which may be useful for
managers to improve the efficiency of sharing information. Firstly, commitment, trust, and
technology are three critical elements that should be invested by managers to increase the suc-
cess of sharing information. Especially, managers should prioritize the establishment of com-
mitment over trust and technology because of the significant effect of commitment on
information sharing. In the fact, commitment is a fundamental foundation to build trust
between individuals. Simultaneously, commitment is the main cause to create long-term and
sustainable cooperation. Another finding is that the efficiency of sharing information is influ-
enced by around 50% of other factors besides four factors in our studies. Thus, managers or
researchers may extent the further research scope to improve better information sharing.
Discussion
Our study introduces one of the key problems in the field of information sharing in the supply
chain. Our problem focuses on accurately determining the effect of factors on information
sharing using meta-analysis. The factors selected are those considered by many previous indi-
vidual studies to examine the positive relationship between factors and information sharing.
They are technology, trust, commitment, and uncertainty. There are four hypotheses formed
in our study, including 1) the greater the trust, the more effective the sharing of information,
2) information technology greatly promotes the success of sharing information, 3) there is a
positive relationship between commitment and information sharing, and 4) the higher the

degree of uncertainty, the stronger the level of information sharing. The characteristics of this
study create a gap between our study and previous studies. Our study simultaneously considers
all four factors while previous studies only examined one, two, or three factors. In addition,
this study accurately determines the influence of each factor on information sharing instead of
just testing their positive effect or relationship on information sharing. This means that the
effect of each element is evaluated, and the most important factor is proposed in our study.
Besides, our conclusions are drawn from a sample of studies due to applying the meta-analysis.
Our results show that three factors: technology, trust, and commitment affect information
sharing significantly while the effect of uncertainty on information sharing is extremely weak.
In the case of commitment, a strong effect of commitment on information sharing is found.
The widest confidence interval is determined by the Hunter-Schmidt model. This is well
worth further exploration. High heterogeneity in both Hunter-Schmidt and fixed-effect mod-
els associates with this finding. After filtering out other effects, commitment moderately affects
information sharing.
For trust and technology, their impact on information sharing is moderate. The analytical
findings are moderate, of which, the influence of trust on information sharing is higher than
the correlation of technology. The largest confidence interval of each factor is also found in the
Hunter-Schmidt model. Negative values and zero do not appear in the confidence interval.
Their data is highly heterogeneous which is shown in all models except the random-effects
model. Similarly, the findings of using the partial correlation coefficient also confirm a moder-
ate direct effect of both trust and technology on information sharing. However, the confidence
interval and variance when using the partial correlation coefficient are relatively small, espe-
cially for technology. This means that there are other variables that affect the correlation coeffi-
cient in the articles.
Uncertainty has a weak relationship with information sharing. Its confidence interval con-
tains a negative value. Therefore, doubt should be raised when discussing the influence of
uncertainty on information sharing. The variability of data is described by its confidence inter-
val and heterogeneity in the Hunter-Schmidt and fixed-effect model. Uncertainty also has a
weak direct effect on information sharing when using the partial correlation coefficient.
All the hypotheses have been confirmed. This study encourages managers or decision-mak-
ers to focus on improving and enhancing their business’s commitment, trust, and technology
with supply chain partners. This may support individuals and their stakeholders to increase
the effectiveness of information sharing, reduce risk and uncertainty, and achieve a successful
supply chain performance [24, 39, 114, 117]. In some cases, managers or decision-makers are
forced to improve one of three factors for a number of reasons such as capacity and budget
constraints. Commitment between partners in the supply chain should be the most priority
factor that needs to be strengthened and further developed. A commitment affects not only
information sharing but also interpersonal trust [41, 111], as well as the relationship between
supply chain partners [122]. According to Kwon et al. [123], commitment is one of the main
reasons for reducing the disruption of information sharing. Having a good or sustainable rela-
tionship makes individuals more willing to communicate more informally with their partners
[112]. Commitment significantly boots the development of the relationships between inter-
organizational in the supply chain [122]. In addition, commitment has a positive relationship
with trust [123]. In the other words, the trust is significantly strengthened by the commitment
between supply chain partners. This also leads to a long-term relationship between partners in
the supply chain.
For the global supply chain, our research findings are fundamental to encourage consider-
ation: commitment, trust, and technology in sharing information. In fact, one of these factors
is also introduced in a number of studies related to global supply chains. For example, Arnold

et al. [30] examined the relationship between commitment and information sharing in the
global supply chain. Shore [124] found that technology affects information sharing in global
supply chain. Ueltschy et al. [125] evidence that commitment has a positive effect on the rela-
tionships in the global supply chain. However, there are some differences between the global
supply chain and the local supply chain. A global supply chain is known as a network that
includes facilities across many different countries. It was formed for the purpose of providing
goods and services [126]. Therefore, the effect of each factor on information sharing may be
reordered in the global supply chain.
Our study contributes two main findings to literature in the field of supply chain informa-
tion sharing. Firstly, our study provides useful evidence to confirm that commitment plays a
key role in information sharing. Thus, commitment should be established as a priority when
individuals want to build or improve their information-sharing system/network. In addition,
there is about 50% simultaneous influence of other factors on information sharing besides the
four factors considered in our study. This can be proposed as a future research direction.
Similar to other studies, our study also has several limitations. The first is input data. Due to
the application of meta-analysis, our data is collected from available publications. Thus,
although suitable publications are searched and identified carefully, it is still possible that some
studies have been missed. Based on the fail-safe number test, however, our observations are
enough to provide reliable results. Another is that our study just considers the effect of the
most common factors. Hence, some more important factors may be missed.
From limitations in our study, some future directions are proposed. Researchers should
extent the research scope by finding the influence of many other factors on information shar-
ing. Then, the future results may compare to our results to find the most important effects on
information sharing. These may support managers to limit resource waste for improving
many factors instead of the most important factor. In addition, the number of samples should
be added to further clarify the relationships between factors and information sharing.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Judit Oláh.
Data curation: István András Kun.
Formal analysis: Miklós Pakurár.
Funding acquisition: Judit Oláh.
Investigation: István András Kun.
Methodology: Chau Thi Diem Le.
Project administration: Miklós Pakurár, Judit Oláh.
Software: István András Kun.
Validation: Miklós Pakurár.
Visualization: Judit Oláh.
Writing – original draft: Chau Thi Diem Le.
References
1. Li G, Lin Y., Wang S., & Yan H. Enhancing agility by timely sharing of supply information. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540610682444

2. Sun S, Yen J, editors. Information supply chain: A unified framework for information-sharing. Interna-
tional Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics; 2005: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
11427995_38
3. Min S, Roath AS, Daugherty PJ, Genchev SE, Chen H, Arndt AD, et al. Supply chain collaboration:
what’s happening? The international journal of logistics management. 2005. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09574090510634539
4. Li J, Shaw MJ, Sikora RT, Tan GW, Yang R. The effects of information sharing strategies on supply
chain performance. College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. 2001; 5(2):5. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.
9595&rep=rep1&type=pdf
5. Lotfi Z, Mukhtar M, Sahran S, Zadeh AT. Information sharing in supply chain management. Procedia
Technology. 2013; 11:298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.194
6. Gavirneni S, Kapuscinski R, Tayur S. Value of information in capacitated supply chains. Management
science. 1999; 45(1):16–24. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.1.16
7. Lee HL, Whang S. E-business and supply chain integration. The practice of supply chain manage-
ment: Where theory and application converge: Springer; 2004. p. 123–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-
387-27275-5_8
8. Lee HL, So KC, Tang CS. The value of information sharing in a two-level supply chain. Management
science. 2000; 46(5):626–43. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.5.626.12047
9. Pakurár M, Kun IA, Felföldi J, Vasa L, Oláh J. Integration of Logistics Function and Business Perfor-
mance. European Research Studies. 2020; 23:567–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.35808/ersj/1946
10. Datta PP, Christopher MG. Information sharing and coordination mechanisms for managing uncer-
tainty in supply chains: a simulation study. International Journal of Production Research. 2011; 49
(3):765–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903460216
11. Mourtzis D. Internet based collaboration in the manufacturing supply chain. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology. 2011; 4(3):296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2011.06.
005
12. Yang T-M, Maxwell TA. Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interper-
sonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government information quar-
terly. 2011; 28(2):164–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.008
13. Jauhari V. Institutional context for IT use in the automotive industry: A case study on the market leader
in india’s passenger vehicle sector. Technological Innovation Across Nations: Springer; 2009. p. 65–
93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00158-1_4 PMID: 22469177
14. Khurana M, Mishra P, Singh A. Barriers to information sharing in supply chain of manufacturing indus-
tries. International Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2011; 1(1):9–29. https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/
ijmsaj.2011.9.29
15. Omar R, Ramayah T, Lo M-C, Sang TY, Siron R. Information sharing, information quality and usage of
information technology (IT) tools in Malaysian organizations. African Journal of Business Manage-
ment. 2010; 4(12):2486–99. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM.9000352
16. Newcomer KE, Caudle SLJPAR. Evaluating public sector information systems: More than meets the
eye. Public Administration Review. 1991:377–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/976406
17. Hoffman JM, Mehra S. Efficient consumer response as a supply chain strategy for grocery businesses.
International Journal of Service Industry Management. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09564230010355386
18. Fawcett SE, Wallin C, Allred C, Magnan G. Supply chain information-sharing: benchmarking a proven
path. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770910948231
19. Fawcett SE, Osterhaus P, Magnan GM, Brau JC, McCarter MW. Information sharing and supply chain
performance: the role of connectivity and willingness. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540710776935
20. Zaheer N, Trkman P. An information sharing theory perspective on willingness to share information in
supply chains. The International Journal of Logistics Management 2017. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-
09-2015-0158
21. Wu L, Chuang C-H, Hsu C-H. Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply
chain performance: A social exchange perspective. International Journal of Production Economics.
2014; 148:122–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.09.016
22. Erdogan B, Çemberci M. The Effect of Trust and Uncertainty in the Supply Chain on Firm Perfor-
mance. Journal of International Trade, Logistics and Law. 2018; 4(2):53–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08974438.2013.833567

23. Vasa L, Baranyai Z, Kovacs Z, Szabo GG. Drivers of trust: some experiences from Hungarian agricul-
tural cooperatives. Journal of International Food Agribusiness Marketing. 2014; 26(4):286–97. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2013.833567
24. Lee HK, Fernando YJTM. The antecedents and outcomes of the medical tourism supply chain. Tour-
ism Management. 2015; 46:148–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.06.014
25. Şahin H, Topal B. Examination of effect of information sharing on businesses performance in the sup-
ply chain process. International Journal of Production Research. 2019; 57(3):815–28. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00207543.2018.1484954
26. Gupta AK, Wilemon DL. Accelerating the development of technology-based new products. California
management review. 1990; 32(2):24–44. https://doi.org/10.2307%2F41166603
27. Li Y, Ye F, Sheu C. Social capital, information sharing and performance. International Journal of Oper-
ations & Production Management 2014. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2013-0132
28. Sundram VPK, Chhetri P, Bahrin AS. The consequences of information technology, information shar-
ing and supply chain integration, towards supply chain performance and firm performance. Journal of
International Logistics and Trade. 2020; 18(1):15–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.24006/jilt.2020.18.1.015
29. Wong W-P, Tan KH, Chuah SH-W, Tseng M-L, Wong KY, Ahmad S. Information sharing and the bane
of information leakage: a multigroup analysis of contract versus noncontract. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-11-2019-0368
30. Arnold V, Benford T, Hampton C, Sutton SG. Competing pressures of risk and absorptive capacity
potential on commitment and information sharing in global supply chains. European Journal of Infor-
mation Systems. 2010; 19(2):134–52. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.49
31. Aragón-Correa JA, Martı́n-Tapia I, Hurtado-Torres NE. Proactive environmental strategies and
employee inclusion: The positive effects of information sharing and promoting collaboration and the
influence of uncertainty. Organization & Environment. 2013; 26(2):139–61. https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F1086026613489034
32. Baihaqi I, Sohal AS. The impact of information sharing in supply chains on organisational perfor-
mance: an empirical study. Production Planning & Control. 2013; 24(8–9):743–58. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09537287.2012.666865
33. Cai S, Jun M, Yang Z. Implementing supply chain information integration in China: The role of institu-
tional forces and trust. Journal of Operations Management. 2010; 28(3):257–68. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jom.2009.11.005
34. Idris S, Mohezar S. Sustaining businesses in a global turbulent environment: The role of information
sharing. Management & Accounting Review (MAR). 2019; 18(1):25–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.24191/
mar.v18i1.763
35. Sheko A, Braimllari A. Information technology inhibitors and information quality in supply chain man-
agement: A PLS-SEM analysis. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. 2018; 7(3):125–. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2478/ajis-2018-0064
36. Somjai S, Jermsittiparsert K. Mediating Impact of Information Sharing in the Relationship of Supply
Chain Capabilities and Business Performance among the Firms of Thailand. International Journal of
Supply Chain Management. 2019; 8(4):357–68. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230741703.pdf
37. Ye F, Wang Z. Effects of information technology alignment and information sharing on supply chain
operational performance. Computers Industrial Engineering. 2013; 65(3):370–7. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cie.2013.03.012
38. Zhong Y, Lai IKW, Guo F, Tang H. Effects of Partnership Quality and Information Sharing on Express
Delivery Service Performance in the E-commerce Industry. Sustainability. 2020; 12(20):8293. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12208293
39. Rajaguru R, Matanda MJ. Effects of inter-organizational compatibility on supply chain capabilities:
Exploring the mediating role of inter-organizational information systems (IOIS) integration. Industrial
Marketing Management. 2013; 42(4):620–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.09.002
40. Li S, Lin B. Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply chain management. Deci-
sion support systems. 2006; 42(3):1641–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.02.011
41. Maister DH, Galford R, Green C. The trusted advisor: Free Press; 2021.
42. Alshaabani A, Oláh J, Popp J, Zaien S. Impact of distributive justice on the trust climate among Middle
Eastern employees. Polish Journal of Management Studies. 2020;21. http://dx.doi.org/10.17512/
pjms.2020.21.1.03
43. Oláh J, Bai A, Karmazin G, Balogh P, Popp J. The role played by trust and its effect on the competive-
ness of logistics service providers in Hungary. Sustainability. 2017; 9(12):2303. https://doi.org/10.
3390/su9122303

44. Morgan RM, Hunt SD. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of marketing.
1994; 58(3):20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002224299405800302
45. Oláh J, Hidayat YA, Gavurova B, Khan MA, Popp J. Trust levels within categories of information and
communication technology companies. Plos one. 2021; 16(6):e0252773. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0252773 PMID: 34115778
46. Agarwal A, Shankar R. On-line trust building in e-enabled supply chain. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540310490080
47. Holm DB, Eriksson K, Johanson JJJoibs. Business networks and cooperation in international business
relationships. Journal of international business studies. 1996; 27(5):1033–53. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8490162
48. Allen NJ, Meyer JP. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative com-
mitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology. 1990; 63(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
49. Anderson E, Weitz B. Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing
science. 1989; 8(4):310–23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.8.4.310
50. Bourlakis M, Melewar T, Salam MA. Supply chain commitment and business process integration.
European Journal of Marketing. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111107230
51. Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q, Xue Y. Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures
and the mediating role of top management. MIS quarterly. 2007:59–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25148781
52. Beckman CM, Haunschild PR, Phillips DJ. Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market
uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization science. 2004; 15(3):259–75. https://doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.1040.0065
53. Pfeffer J, Salancik G. External Control of Organizations—Resource Dependence Perspective: Rout-
ledge; 2015. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496213
54. Burgers WP, Hill CW, Kim WC. A theory of global strategic alliances: The case of the global auto
industry. Strategic management journal. 1993; 14(6):419–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.
4250140603
55. Gharakhani D, Mavi RK, Hamidi N. Impact of supply chain management practices on innovation and
organizational performance in Iranian Companies. African Journal of Business Management. 2012; 6
(19):5939–49. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.1136
56. Sun SY, Hsu MH, Hwang WJ. The impact of alignment between supply chain strategy and environ-
mental uncertainty on SCM performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 2009.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540910954548
57. Paulraj A, Chen IJ. Environmental uncertainty and strategic supply management: a resource depen-
dence perspective and performance implications. Journal of Supply Chain Management. 2007; 43
(3):29–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2007.00033.x
58. Panahifar F, Byrne PJ, Salam MA, Heavey C. Supply chain collaboration and firm’s performance: the
critical role of information sharing and trust. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2017-0114
59. Khan M, Hussain M, Papastathopoulos A, Manikas I. Trust, information sharing and uncertainty: An
empirical investigation into their impact on sustainability in service supply chains in the United Arab
Emirates. Sustainable Development. 2018; 26(6):870–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1856
60. Wang Z, Ye F, Tan KH. Effects of managerial ties and trust on supply chain information sharing and
supplier opportunism. International journal of production Research. 2014; 52(23):7046–61. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207543.2014.932931
61. Abdullah Z, Musa R. The effect of trust and information sharing on relationship commitment in supply
chain management. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 130:266–72. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.031
62. Wang S-J, Huang C-T, Wang W-L, Chen Y-H. Incorporating ARIMA forecasting and service-level
based replenishment in RFID-enabled supply chain. International Journal of Production Research.
2010; 48(9):2655–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540903564983
63. Söllner A. Asymmetrical commitment in business relationships. Journal of Business Research. 1999;
46(3):219–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00039-3
64. Malhotra A, Gosain S, Sawy OAE. Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: Gearing for
partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS quarterly. 2005:145–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25148671
65. Mentzer JT, Min S, Zacharia ZG. The nature of interfirm partnering in supply chain management. Jour-
nal of retailing. 2000; 76(4):549–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00040-3

66. Topal B, Sahin H. The influence of information sharing in the supply chain process on business perfor-
mance: an empirical study. Studies in Informatics Control. 2018; 27(2):203–14. https://doi.org/10.
24846/v27i2y201808
67. Jia F, Cai S, Xu S. Interacting effects of uncertainties and institutional forces on information sharing in
marketing channels. Industrial Marketing Management. 2014; 43(5):737–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2014.04.008
68. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis: John Wiley &
Sons; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
69. Sterne JA, Harbord RMJTsj. Funnel plots in meta-analysis. The stata journal. 2004; 4(2):127–41.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1536867X0400400204
70. Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical
tests and prevalence in the literature. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2000; 53(11):1119–29. https://
doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00242-0 PMID: 11106885
71. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder CJB. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical
test. Bmj. 1997; 315(7109):629–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 PMID: 9310563
72. Hedges LV. Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics. 1992; 17(4):279–96. https://doi.org/10.
3102%2F10769986017004279
73. Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological methods.
1998; 3(4):486. http://langcog.stanford.edu/expts/MLL/ME_meta/Hedges_Vevea1998.pdf
74. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis: Academic press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.
1016/C2009-0-03396-0
75. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings:
Sage; 2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2289738
76. Afshan N, Chatterjee S, Chhetri P. Impact of information technology and relational aspect on supply
chain collaboration leading to financial performance: A study in Indian context. Benchmarking: An
International Journal. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2016-0142
77. Cao Q, Schniederjans DG, Schniederjans M. Establishing the use of cloud computing in supply chain
management. Operations Management Research. 2017; 10(1–2):47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-
017-0123-6
78. Chen Y-H, Lin T-P, Yen DC. How to facilitate inter-organizational knowledge sharing: The impact of
trust. Information & management. 2014; 51(5):568–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.007
79. Eckerd S, Hill JA. The buyer-supplier social contract: information sharing as a deterrent to unethical
behaviors. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 2012. https://doi.org/10.
1108/01443571211208641
80. Gonzálvez-Gallego N, Molina-Castillo F-J, Soto-Acosta P, Varajao J, Trigo A. Using integrated infor-
mation systems in supply chain management. Enterprise Information Systems. 2015; 9(2):210–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2013.879209
81. Gunasekaran A, Papadopoulos T, Dubey R, Wamba SF, Childe SJ, Hazen B, et al. Big data and pre-
dictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research.
2017; 70:308–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.004
82. Hu Q, Xiao J, Xie K, Saraf N, editors. Antecedents and consequences of trust in supply chain: the role
of information technology. 19th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2011); 2011;
Helsinki, Finland: Iowa State University Digital Repositories. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/scm_conf/11/
83. Huo B, Liu C, Chen H, Zhao X. Dependence, trust, and 3PL integration: an empirical study in China.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPDLM-09-2016-0284
84. Kalyar MN, Naveed T, Anwar MS, Iftikhar K. Supply chain information integration: exploring the role of
institutional forces and trust. Journal of Business Administration and Education. 2013; 3(1). http://
www.infinitypress.info/index.php/jbae/article/view/105
85. Kang S, Moon T. Impact of information exchange and supply chain integration on supply chain perfor-
mance. International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology. 2016; 9(7):237–46. https://
doi.org/10.14257/ijunesst.2016.9.7.24
86. Khan SA, Liang Y, Shahzad S. The effect of buyer-supplier partnership and information integration on
supply chain performance: an experience from Chinese manufacturing industry. International Journal
of Supply Chain Management. 2015; 4(2):20–34. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230743869.pdf
87. Kulangara NP, Jackson SA, Prater E. Examining the impact of socialization and information sharing
and the mediating effect of trust on innovation capability. International Journal of Operations & Produc-
tion Management. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2015-0558

88. Li S, Cui X, Huo B, Zhao X. Information sharing, coordination and supply chain performance: The mod-
erating effect of demand uncertainty. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 2019. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IMDS-10-2018-0453
89. Raza M, Alshebami A, Aziz A. EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ON
THE FIRM’S SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION IN MALAYSIA–EXAMINING MODERATING
ROLE OF ASSOCIATION AMONG PARTNERS. innovation. 2020; 29(5s):1314–26. https://www.
researchgate.net/profile/Ali-Alshebami/publication/340504060_Evaluating_The_Effect_Of_
Information_Technology_On_The_Firm’S_Supply_Chain_Collaboration_In_Malaysia_-_Examining_
Moderating_Role_Of_Association_Among_Partners/links/5e8dba864585150839c7a933/Evaluating-
The-Effect-Of-Information-Technology-On-The-FirmS-Supply-Chain-Collaboration-In-Malaysia-
Examining-Moderating-Role-Of-Association-Among-Partners.pdf
90. Tong PY, Crosno JL. Are information asymmetry and sharing good, bad, or context dependent? A
meta-analytic review. Industrial Marketing Management. 2016; 56:167–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2015.11.004
91. Üstündağ A, Ungan MC. Supplier flexibility and performance: an empirical research. Business Pro-
cess Management Journal. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2019-0027
92. Vankireddy K, Baral R. Organisational and inter-organisational competencies for supply chain integra-
tion. International Journal of Process Management Benchmarking. 2019; 9(1):101–23. https://doi.org/
10.1504/IJPMB.2019.097822
93. Vanpoucke E, Vereecke A, Muylle S. Leveraging the impact of supply chain integration through infor-
mation technology. International Journal of Operations Production Management. 2017. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJOPM-07-2015-0441
94. Wei S, Ke W, Liu H, Wei KK. Supply chain information integration and firm performance: Are explor-
ative and exploitative IT capabilities complementary or substitutive? Decision Sciences. 2020; 51
(3):464–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12364
95. Wiengarten F, Longoni A. How does uncertainty affect workplace accidents? Exploring the role of
information sharing in manufacturing networks. International Journal of Operations Production Man-
agement. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-07-2015-0431
96. Yang J. Supply chain agility: Securing performance for Chinese manufacturers. International Journal
of Production Economics. 2014; 150:104–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.018
97. Yim B, Leem B. The effect of the supply chain social capital. Industrial Management Data Systems.
2013. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571311312640
98. Youn S, Yang MGM, Hong P, Park K. Strategic supply chain partnership, environmental supply chain
management practices, and performance outcomes: an empirical study of Korean firms. Journal of
Cleaner Production. 2013; 56:121–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.09.026
99. Zailani S, Premkumar R, Fernando Y. Factors influencing the effectiveness of operational information
sharing within supply chain channels in Malaysia. Operations Supply Chain Management: An Interna-
tional Journal. 2014; 1(2):85–100. http://doi.org/10.31387/oscm020010
100. Field AP, Gillett R. How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychol-
ogy. 2010; 63(3):665–94. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733
101. Rosenthal R, DiMatteo MR. Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature
reviews. Annual review of psychology. 2001; 52(1):59–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.
1.59 PMID: 11148299
102. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational researcher. 1976; 5
(10):3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X005010003
103. Church RM. The effective use of secondary data. Learning and motivation. 2002; 33(1):32–45. https://
doi.org/10.1006/lmot.2001.1098
104. Field AP. Is the meta-analysis of correlation coefficients accurate when population correlations vary?
Psychological methods. 2005; 10(4):444. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.444 PMID:
16392999
105. Pakurár M, Khan MA, Benedek A, Oláh J. The impact of green practices, cooperation and innovation
on the performance of supply chains using statistical method of meta-analysis. Journal of International
Studies Vol. 2020; 13(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2020/13-3/8
106. Rosenberg MS. The file-drawer problem revisited: a general weighted method for calculating fail-safe
numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution. 2005; 59(2):464–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.
tb01004.x PMID: 15807430
107. Rosenthal R. Combining results of independent studies. Psychological bulletin. 1978; 85(1):185.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.85.1.185

108. Fragkos KC, Tsagris M, Frangos CC. Publication bias in meta-analysis: confidence intervals for
Rosenthal’s fail-safe number. International scholarly research notices. 2014; 2014. https://mpra.ub.
uni-muenchen.de/66451/ https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/825383 PMID: 27437470
109. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020
statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj. 2021;372. https://doi.org/10.
1136/bmj.n71
110. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: Academic press; 2013. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203771587
111. Xiao Y, Zheng X, Pan W, Xie X. Trust, relationship commitment and cooperative performance: supply
chain management. Chinese Management Studies. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17506141011074129
112. Rashed CAA, Azeem A, Halim Z. Effect of information and knowledge sharing on supply chain perfor-
mance: a survey based approach. Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management. 2010; 3
(2):61–77. https://doi.org/10.12660/joscmv3n2p61-77
113. Chadwick C, Super JF, Kwon K. Resource orchestration in practice: CEO emphasis on SHRM, com-
mitment-based HR systems, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2015; 36(3):360–
76. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2217
114. Sanders NR. IT alignment in supply chain relationships: A study of supplier benefits. Journal of Supply
Chain Management 2005; 41(2):4–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1055-6001.2005.04102001.x
115. Fynes B, De Búrca S, Marshall D. Environmental uncertainty, supply chain relationship quality and
performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 2004; 10(4–5):179–90. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pursup.2004.11.003
116. Li JJ, Poppo L, Zhou KZ. Do managerial ties in China always produce value? Competition, uncertainty,
and domestic vs. foreign firms. Strategic management journal. 2008; 29(4):383–400. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.665
117. Luo Y. Industrial dynamics and managerial networking in an emerging market: The case of China.
Strategic management journal. 2003; 24(13):1315–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.363
118. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Rothstein H. Meta-analysis: Fixed effect vs. random effects. Meta-analysis
com. 2007. https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/Meta-analysis%20fixed%20effect%20vs%
20random%20effects%20072607.pdf
119. Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. Meta-analysis: Its strengths and limitations. Cleveland Clinic
journal of medicine. 2008; 75(6):431. https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.75.6.431 PMID: 18595551
120. Kulinskaya E, Dollinger MB, Bjørkestøl K. Testing for homogeneity in meta-analysis I. The one-param-
eter case: standardized mean difference. Biometrics. 2011; 67(1):203–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1541-0420.2010.01442.x PMID: 20528863
121. Pakurár M, Benedek S, Popp J, Magda R, Oláh J. Trust or doubt: Accuracy of determining factors for
supply chain performance. Polish Journal of Management Studies. 2019; 19(1):283–97. https://doi.
org/:%2010.17512/pjms.2019.19.1.22
122. Mahmud P, Paul SK, Azeem A, Chowdhury P. Evaluating Supply Chain Collaboration Barriers in
Small-and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7449. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13137449
123. Kwon IWG, Suh T. Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain relationships.
Journal of supply chain management. 2004; 40(1):4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2004.
tb00165.x
124. Shore B. Information sharing in global supply chain systems. Journal of Global Information Technology
Management. 2001; 4(3):27–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2001.10856306
125. Ueltschy LC, Ueltschy ML, Fachinelli AC. The impact of culture on the generation of trust in global sup-
ply chain relationships. Marketing Management Journal. 2007; 17(1). https://www.researchgate.net/
profile/Monique-Murfield/publication/288868654_The_impact_of_culture_on_the_generation_of_
trust_in_global_supply_chain_relationships/links/5720f45c08ae5454b230faae/The-impact-of-culture-
on-the-generation-of-trust-in-global-supply-chain-relationships.pdf
126. Meixell MJ, Gargeya VB. Global supply chain design: A literature review and critique. Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 2005; 41(6):531–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tre.2005.06.003.

Pone 0260653

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pone 0260653

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

The impact of factors on information sharing:

☯ These authors contributed equally to this work.

Copyright: © 2021 Diem Le et al. This is an open Methods

Data Availability Statement: Data are available on

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 1 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 2 / 24

Source: Authors’ summary review (2021).

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 3 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 4 / 24

In information sharing, technology plays a key role in empowering companies to access or

Publication selection strategy and publication bias tests

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 5 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 6 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 7 / 24

• The homogeneity of effect size:

Whereas ri is the correlation coefficient between two variables of study i

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 8 / 24

• The transformed effect size:

• Sampling variance of the average effect size:

• The variance at Fisher’s z value:

• The standard error:

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 9 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 10 / 24

Fig 1. Publication selections. Source: PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [109].

Table 3. Publication bias test.

Source: Analyzed data (2021). k is the number of studies.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 11 / 24

Table 4. Correlation coefficient between factors and information sharing.

Source: Analyzed data (2021). k is the number of studies.

The results of analysis models

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 12 / 24

Table 5. Confidence interval between factors and information sharing.

Source: Analyzed data (2021). k is the number of studies.

Table 6. Homogeneity test statistic.

Source: Analyzed data (2021). k is the number of studies.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 13 / 24

Table 7. Partial correlation coefficient.

Source: Analyzed data (2021). k is the number of studies.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 14 / 24

Fig 2. The effect of factors on information sharing variance.

Table 8. Results of confidence interval in three models.

Source: Analyzed data (2021). k is the number of studies.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 15 / 24

Table 9. Homogeneity test statistic for three models.

Source: Analyzed data (2021). k is the number of studies.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 16 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 17 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 18 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 19 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 20 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 21 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 22 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 23 / 24

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260653 December 22, 2021 24 / 24

You might also like