IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v51y2022i1s0048733321002043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Business and management research: Low instances of replication studies and a lack of author independence in replications

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan, James C.
  • A Tipu, Syed A.

Abstract

Increasing awareness of the credibility crisis and related replication crisis in business research drives calls for greater understanding of the state of replication studies. This research addresses these calls by analyzing the 10-year publication history of 121 leading journals (Academic Journal Guide (AJG 2018)). Examination of 83,682 articles reveals 4,412 potential replications. Detailed analysis of 500 randomly selected articles offers further insights. Results indicate most replications are conceptual in nature, support prior findings and represent only 1.47% of published research in leading journals. Significantly, most replications occur as part of within-study or intrastudy designs. Replications by independent researchers are very rare, raising credibility concerns due to author overlap and associated researcher and measurement biases. Recommendations for the improvement of replication efforts are made.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan, James C. & A Tipu, Syed A., 2022. "Business and management research: Low instances of replication studies and a lack of author independence in replications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:1:s0048733321002043
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104408
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733321002043
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104408?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, Jeremy & Martin, Ben R., 2019. "Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: The case of business school research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 414-427.
    2. Garret Christensen & Edward Miguel, 2018. "Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 920-980, September.
    3. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Baumgarth, Carsten & Hubbard, Raymond & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Replication research's disturbing trend," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 411-415, April.
    4. Fricke, Hans & Grogger, Jeffrey & Steinmayr, Andreas, 2018. "Exposure to academic fields and college major choice," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 199-213.
    5. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    6. ., 2018. "The academic publishing market," Chapters, in: The Economics of Open Access, chapter 2, pages 10-56, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Herman Aguinis & Angelo M. Solarino, 2019. "Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(8), pages 1291-1315, August.
    8. Hubbard, Raymond & Lindsay, R. Murray, 2013. "From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1377-1388.
    9. Hubbard, Raymond & Vetter, Daniel E., 1996. "An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 153-164, February.
    10. Jeremy Hall & Ben R. Martin, 2019. "Towards a Taxonomy of Academic Misconduct: The Case of Business School Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2010. "Replications of forecasting research," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 4-8, January.
    12. Rossi, Luciano & Damaceno, Rafael J.P. & Freire, Igor L. & Bechara, Etelvino J.H. & Mena-Chalco, Jesús P., 2018. "Topological metrics in academic genealogy graphs," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1042-1058.
    13. Easley, Richard W. & Madden, Charles S. & Dunn, Mark G., 2000. "Conducting Marketing Science: The Role of Replication in the Research Process," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 83-92, April.
    14. J. Britt Holbrook & Stephen Curry & Shina C. L. Kamerlin, 2018. "Debate on academic freedom and open access is healthy," Nature, Nature, vol. 562(7728), pages 494-494, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dreber, Anna & Johannesson, Magnus, 2023. "A framework for evaluating reproducibility and replicability in economics," I4R Discussion Paper Series 38, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    2. Adler, Susanne Jana & Sharma, Pratyush N & Radomir, Lăcrămioara, 2023. "Toward open science in PLS-SEM: Assessing the state of the art and future perspectives," OSF Preprints sbpe9, Center for Open Science.
    3. Jörn H. Block & Christian Fisch & Narmeen Kanwal & Solvej Lorenzen & Anna Schulze, 2023. "Replication studies in top management journals: An empirical investigation of prevalence, types, outcomes, and impact," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 1109-1134, September.
    4. Athreye, Suma & Kathuria, Vinish & Martelli, Alessandro & Piscitello, Lucia, 2023. "Intellectual property rights and the international transfer of climate change mitigating technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    5. Brinkerink, Jasper & De Massis, Alfredo & Kellermanns, Franz, 2022. "One finding is no finding: Toward a replication culture in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2021. "Reproducibility and replicability crisis: How management compares to psychology and economics – A systematic review of literature," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 577-594.
    2. Ahi, Alan A. & Sinkovics, Noemi & Shildibekov, Yelnur & Sinkovics, Rudolf R. & Mehandjiev, Nikolay, 2022. "Advanced technologies and international business: A multidisciplinary analysis of the literature," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(4).
    3. Francisco J. Conejo & Lawrence F. Cunningham & Clifford E. Young, 2020. "Revisiting the Brand Luxury Index: new empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 108-122, January.
    4. Peterson, Robert A. & Merunka, Dwight R., 2014. "Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 1035-1041.
    5. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2013. "Research with In-built replications: Comment and further suggestions for replication research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1406-1408.
    6. Hubbard, Raymond & Lindsay, R. Murray, 2013. "From significant difference to significant sameness: Proposing a paradigm shift in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1377-1388.
    7. Riefler, Petra & Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, 2009. "Consumer cosmopolitanism: Review and replication of the CYMYC scale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 407-419, April.
    8. Uncles, Mark D. & Kwok, Simon, 2013. "Designing research with in-built differentiated replication," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1398-1405.
    9. Michael A. Clemens, 2017. "The Meaning Of Failed Replications: A Review And Proposal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 326-342, February.
    10. Rakesh Sambharya & Martina Musteen, 2014. "Institutional environment and entrepreneurship: An empirical study across countries," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 314-330, December.
    11. Doucouliagos, Hristos & Paldam, Martin & Stanley, T.D., 2018. "Skating on thin evidence: Implications for public policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 16-25.
    12. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2019. "Supporting replication research in management journals: Qualitative analysis of editorials published between 1970 and 2015," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 45-57.
    13. James, Victoria K., 2010. "A socio-cultural approach to exploring consumer boycott intelligence: A commentary essay," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 363-365, April.
    14. Daniele Fanelli, 2012. "Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(3), pages 891-904, March.
    15. Trafimow, David & Hyman, Michael R. & Kostyk, Alena, 2020. "The (im)precision of scholarly consumer behavior research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 93-101.
    16. Nayeem, Tahmid & Casidy, Riza, 2015. "Australian consumers' decision-making styles for everyday products," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 67-74.
    17. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Martiskainen, Mari & Furszyfer Del Rio, Dylan D., 2021. "Knowledge, energy sustainability, and vulnerability in the demographics of smart home technology diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    18. Pina, José M. & Dall'Olmo Riley, Francesca & Lomax, Wendy, 2013. "Generalizing spillover effects of goods and service brand extensions: A meta-analysis approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1411-1419.
    19. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2010. "Replications of forecasting research," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 4-8, January.
    20. Kristina Haberstroh & Ulrich R. Orth & Stefan Hoffmann & Berit Brunk, 2017. "Consumer Response to Unethical Corporate Behavior: A Re-Examination and Extension of the Moral Decoupling Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 161-173, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:51:y:2022:i:1:s0048733321002043. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.