How editors of management journals invite (and discourage) submission of replication research.
What is it about?
An analysis of 1901 editorials published between 1970 and 2015 by top management journals shows that the issue of replication is infrequently raised and that often an ambivalent message is sent to readers: yes, we do like replications but not really. The discouraging part of the message is often delivered implicitly. Nevertheless, it has a potential to affect submissions of replication studies. The study also reveals that replication research is mostly supported by scholars with training and research experience in psychology, operations research, logistics, and STEM. This suggests that we witness a case of institutional entrepreneurship undertaken by actors situated at the borders between scientific disciplines.
Why is it important?
Virtual lack of replication research in management science is detrimental to the progress of the field and affects the trustworthiness of the empirical results published in management journals. The present study offers cues on how to communicate with readers to avoid sending mixed messages about replication research.
The following have contributed to this page: Przemysław Hensel