Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
A number of studies have shown that little replication and extension research is published in the business disciplines. This has deleterious consequences for the development of a cumulative body of knowledge in these same areas. It has been speculated, but never formally tested, that replication research is more likely to be published in lower tiers of the journal hierarchy. The present paper indicates very low levels of replication in management and strategic management journals, regardless of their prestige. Moreover, even those replications that are published tend not to be critical—odd in applied social sciences that are largely preparadigmatic and where extensibility, generalizability and utility of scientific constructs tend to be low. The goal of science is empirical generalization, or knowledge development. Systematically conducted replications with extensions facilitate this goal. It is clear, however, that many editors, reviewers, and researchers hold attitudes toward replication research that betray a lack of understanding about its role. Long-run strategies to dispel these misconceptions must involve changes in graduate training aimed at making the conduct of such vital work second nature. It is further suggested that journals in all tiers create a section specifically for the publication of replication research, and that top-tier journals take the lead in this regard. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hubbard et al. (Sun,) studied this question.