IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v52y2023i8s0048733323001257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting seen: Results from an online experiment to draw more attention to replications

Author

Listed:
  • Coupé, Tom
  • Reed, W. Robert
  • Zimmermann, Christian

Abstract

Are users of bibliographic databases interested in learning about replications? Can they be induced to learn? To answer these questions, we performed an experiment using an online research bibliography, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc). RePEc is the main research bibliography for preprints and published papers in economics. Using stratified randomization, we allocated 324 replications and their corresponding original papers to clusters. We then drew from these clusters to construct the treatment and control groups. We added brightly coloured tabs to the relevant webpages to alert visitors to the existence of a replication paper. We monitored traffic over three phases lasting several months: a) no treatment, b) treatment in one group, and c) treatment in both groups. Our estimates indicate that this intervention generated an average click-through rate (CTR) of 1.6 %, resulting in a 13 % increase in the number of visits to the webpages of the replication papers, although only the former estimate was statistically significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Coupé, Tom & Reed, W. Robert & Zimmermann, Christian, 2023. "Getting seen: Results from an online experiment to draw more attention to replications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(8).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:52:y:2023:i:8:s0048733323001257
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733323001257
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104841?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    3. Maren Duvendack & Richard Palmer-Jones & W. Robert Reed, 2017. "What Is Meant by "Replication" and Why Does It Encounter Resistance in Economics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 46-51, May.
    4. Maren Duvendack & Richard W. Palmer-Jones & W. Robert Reed, 2015. "Replications in Economics: A Progress Report," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 12(2), pages 164–191-1, May.
    5. Susan Athey & Guido Imbens, 2016. "The Econometrics of Randomized Experiments," Papers 1607.00698, arXiv.org.
    6. Lucas C. Coffman & Muriel Niederle, 2015. "Pre-analysis Plans Have Limited Upside, Especially Where Replications Are Feasible," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 81-98, Summer.
    7. 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).
    8. C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis, 2012. "Raise standards for preclinical cancer research," Nature, Nature, vol. 483(7391), pages 531-533, March.
    9. James Berry & Lucas C. Coffman & Douglas Hanley & Rania Gihleb & Alistair J. Wilson, 2017. "Assessing the Rate of Replication in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 27-31, May.
    10. Camerer, Colin & Dreber, Anna & Forsell, Eskil & Ho, Teck-Hua & Huber, Jurgen & Johannesson, Magnus & Kirchler, Michael & Almenberg, Johan & Altmejd, Adam & Chan, Taizan & Heikensten, Emma & Holzmeist, 2016. "Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in Economics," MPRA Paper 75461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Jodi Schneider & Di Ye & Alison M. Hill & Ashley S. Whitehorn, 2020. "Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2877-2913, December.
    12. Judit Bar-Ilan & Gali Halevi, 2018. "Temporal characteristics of retracted articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1771-1783, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Fecher, Benedikt & Harhoff, Dietmar & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Replication studies in economics—How many and which papers are chosen for replication, and why?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 62-83.
    2. Ankel-Peters, Jörg & Fiala, Nathan & Neubauer, Florian, 2023. "Do economists replicate?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 219-232.
    3. 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.
    4. Tom Coupé & Thomas Logchies & W. Robert Reed, 2024. "Do Replications Really Receive Fewer Citations?," Working Papers in Economics 24/15, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    5. Sylvérie Herbert & Hautahi Kingi & Flavio Stanchi & Lars Vilhubern, 2021. "The Reproducibility of Economics Research: A Case Study," Working papers 853, Banque de France.
    6. Nick Huntington‐Klein & Andreu Arenas & Emily Beam & Marco Bertoni & Jeffrey R. Bloem & Pralhad Burli & Naibin Chen & Paul Grieco & Godwin Ekpe & Todd Pugatch & Martin Saavedra & Yaniv Stopnitzky, 2021. "The influence of hidden researcher decisions in applied microeconomics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 944-960, July.
    7. Lucas C. Coffman & Muriel Niederle & Alistair J. Wilson, 2017. "A Proposal to Organize and Promote Replications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 41-45, May.
    8. Anna Dreber & Magnus Johannesson, 2025. "A framework for evaluating reproducibility and replicability in economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 63(2), pages 338-356, April.
    9. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    10. Colliard, Jean-Edouard & Hurlin, Christophe & Pérignon, Christophe, 2019. "Reproducibility Certification in Economics Research," HEC Research Papers Series 1345, HEC Paris.
    11. Guillaume Coqueret, 2023. "Forking paths in financial economics," Papers 2401.08606, arXiv.org.
    12. 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).
    13. Hernández Alemán, Anastasia & León, Carmelo J., 2018. "La Réplica en el Análisis Económico Aplicado/Replication in Applied Economic Analysis," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 36, pages 317-332, Enero.
    14. Drazen, Allan & Dreber, Anna & Ozbay, Erkut Y. & Snowberg, Erik, 2021. "Journal-based replication of experiments: An application to “Being Chosen to Lead”," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    15. Tom Coupé & W. Robert Reed, 2021. "Do Negative Replications Affect Citations?," Working Papers in Economics 21/14, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    16. Mark J. McCabe & Frank Mueller-Langer, 2019. "Does Data Disclosure Increase Citations? Empirical Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Leading Economics Journals," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2019-02, Joint Research Centre.
    17. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    18. Christophe Pérignon & Olivier Akmansoy & Christophe Hurlin & Anna Dreber & Felix Holzmeister & Juergen Huber & Magnus Johanneson & Michael Kirchler & Albert Menkveld & Michael Razen & Utz Weitzel, 2022. "Reproducibility of Empirical Results: Evidence from 1,000 Tests in Finance," Working Papers hal-03810013, HAL.
    19. Luigi Butera & Philip Grossman & Daniel Houser & John List & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2020. "A New Mechanism to Alleviate the Crises of Confidence in Science - With an Application to the Public Goods Game," Artefactual Field Experiments 00684, The Field Experiments Website.
    20. Anna Dreber & Magnus Johannesson & Yifan Yang, 2024. "Selective reporting of placebo tests in top economics journals," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(3), pages 921-932, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Replications; RePEc; Experiment; Online research bibliography; Webpages; Click-throughs;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • Z00 - Other Special Topics - - General - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:52:y:2023:i:8:s0048733323001257. 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.