Description
Replication is a cornerstone of cumulative science, providing essential insights into the reliability of research findings. Yet, despite an increasing number of published replications, they often fail to affect the belief in, and use of, the original conclusions. Replications are infrequently cited, usually disregarded in theoretical discussions, and—except for striking exceptions—fail to shift research agendas. This raises a critical question: If replications are fundamental to scientific self-correction, why do their results so often fail to shape knowledge?
In our study, we plan to use the FORRT Replication Database (FReD), a large community-driven repository of replications and original studies, to analyse the effect of failed replications on citations of original studies following the replication being made public.
In a second step, we will test whether the citation impact of failed replications is moderated by pre-specified study characteristics (e.g., journal rank, author team composition).
This study will a) estimate the causal effect of failed replications on citation rates of original studies, and b) identify characteristics that moderate this effect. Understanding what makes some replications more influential than others can inform strategies to increase their visibility and impact. In the talk I will present current status of the study.
