<p>Like the true academic I shall answer a slightly different question.</p>

<p>If you had asked the question and we (the relatively small collection of people who answer on the meta-analysis tag) had answered with our favourite examples would you be any further forward? My feeling is that you would not. It is of course perfectly true that the underlying mathematical theory of meta-analysis is identical across disciplines but custom and practice differ. Part of this is for good reasons. In the field where I work, health, there are often quite few studies and each gives rise to a single effect size. In other areas there may be many hundreds of studies or each study may give rise to dozens of effect sizes. The range of examples needed to cover all the bases would be large.</p>

<p>A further issue is that the field advances but practitioners are still taught what was current some time, possibly years ago. The advice to look at guidelines offered by @gung in a comment should at least avoid some of the pitfalls.</p>

<p>Although I have written this specifically about meta-analysis I believe that the issues would be quite similar for other fields of applied statistics and underpins the reluctance to have list answers on these sites.</p>
