Replication is necessary for theory building and knowledge accumulation in communication science. Thus, researchers might wonder about the frequency with which we are publishing replication attempts. We analyzed a representative sample of quantitative communication research published in central and regional journals between 2007 and 2016. Approximately one in every seven published reports was framed as a replication attempt, the majority of which were conceptual replications, and they were more likely to be found in central journals. Studies more frequently claimed in the Discussion (post hoc) that the results replicated an existing finding. The results suggest the field is pursuing replication more frequently than might be assumed; however, they are also consistent with a bias favouring originality and statistically significant results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keating et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: