A tale of two cultures: Revisiting journal editors' views of replication research

Easley, Richard W.; Madden, Charles S.; Gray, Van

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.013

Cited by 47 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One question in Table 7 specifically targeted replications. For decades there has been a debate regarding the need for more replications in business and economics research [ 45 , 27 ]. In our survey, 10.4% of the respondents reported that a replication study had been published in their journal in the last two years (see Table 7 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the third phase we designed a survey to all the MBE journals investigated in the retraction search in order to capture perceptions, actions and ideas related to both the misconduct and the marginality problems. This second survey asked specific questions on a number of practices discussed in the broader science community: the application of screening software to detect plagiarism [ 14 ]; the use of replications [ 27 , 28 ]; measures to specify co-author contribution [ 29 , 30 ]; methods to assess and publicly reward reviewers [ 31 ]; as well as new techniques, including crowdsourcing, to reach out to untapped reviewer communities [ 32 ]. To gauge the prevalence of the marginality problem, the survey used questions on salami publishing as an indicator.…”

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals

Karabag

Berggren

2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe paper presents data on the two problems of misconduct and marginality in management, business and economics (MBE) journals and their practices to combat these problems.DesignData was collected in three phases. First, all publicly retracted papers in MBE journals were identified through keywords searches in 7 major databases (n = 1329 journals). Second, a focused survey was distributed to editors involved in such retractions (n = 64; response rate = 28%). Finally, a survey was administered to all active journals in the seven databases to collect data on editors’ perceptions and practices related to the two problems (n = 937, response rate = 31.8%). Frequency analyses, cross tabulations, and qualitative analyses of open answers were used to examine the data.Results184 retracted papers in MBE journals were identified in 2005–2015 (no retraction was found before 2005). From 2005–2007 to 2012–2015, the number of retractions increased by a factor ten with an all-time high in 2015. The survey to journals with reported retractions illustrates how already a few cases of suspected misconduct put a strain on the editorial workload. The survey to all active journals revealed that 42% of the respondents had started to use software to screen all submitted papers, and that a majority recognized the problem of marginality, as indicated by salami-style submissions. According to some editors, reviewers easily spot such submissions whereas others argued that authors may submit thinly sliced papers in parallel to several journals, which means that this practice is only discovered post-publication. The survey question on ways to support creative contributions stimulated a rich response of ideas regarding editorial vision, engaged boards and developmental approaches. The study uses data from three specialized fields, but its findings may be highly relevant to many journals in the social sciences.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Misconduct, Marginality and Editorial Practices in Management, Business and Economics Journals

Karabag

Berggren

2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 Scientists across numerous disciplines have expressed serious concerns and engaged in both philosophical and practical discussions about reproducible research. Disciplines represented in these discussions include biology, 4 biomedical 5 and preclinical research, 6,7 business and organizational studies, [8][9][10][11][12] computational sciences, 13,14 drug discovery, 15 economics, 16,17 education, [18][19][20][21][22] epidemiology and statistics, [23][24][25] genetics, 26 immunology, 27 policy research, 28 political science, [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] psychology, 29,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] and sociology. 44 As a case in point: research indicates that more than half of psychology studies fail reproducibility tests.…”

Section: Background and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility: A Primer on Semantics and Implications for Research

Pellizzari¹,

Lohr

Blatecky

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Commentators, for example, report an unwillingness or inability to share published data, fewer published replications than in the past, and questionable research practices (Pashler and Wagenmakers 2012). They also reveal that journal editors, particularly those in the social sciences, do not evince much enthusiasm for replications (Easley et al 2013), a finding supported by reviews of disciplines that identify very few published replications (e.g., the complete publication history of the current top 100 education journals ranked by 5-year impact factor found that only 0.13 % of education articles were replications; see Makel and Plucker 2014). Yet, such findings should not be surprising as academics place a premium on originality.…”

Section: The Changing Importance Of Literature Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%