Clinical Psychiatry Open Access

A Systematic Review of Reproducibility and Replicability Crisis

Christian Montag^* Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Belgium
^*Correspondence: Christian Montag, Department of Translation, Interpreting and Communication, Belgium, Email:

Received: 02-May-2022, Manuscript No. IPCP-22- 13550 ; Editor assigned: 04-May-2022, Pre QC No. IPCP-22- 13550 (PQ); Reviewed: 18-May-2022, QC No. IPCP-22- 13550; Revised: 23-May-2022, Manuscript No. IPCP-22- 13550 (R); Published: 30-May-2022, DOI: 10.35841/2471-9854-8.5.142

Introduction

Concerns about the replicability and reproducibility of published social science research have dominated the last decade. Failures to replicate landmark studies, as well as high-profile cases of research fraud, have prompted scholars to question the reliability of both findings and institutionalised research practises. This paper addresses two issues: What is the state of replication and reproduction research in management in comparison to psychology and economics? Are the disciplines’ methods for studying the replication problem equally advanced? A systematic review of the literature yielded 67 studies relevant to these questions. The findings show that the replication prevalence rate in management studies is nearly identical to that of psychology and economics, with a high level of variation between management and other disciplines.

Description

Furthermore, surveys of published replications tend to report high replication success rates for management and other business- related disciplines, similar to psychology but not economics. A comparison with recent results in preregistered multistudy replications in psychology and economics, on the other hand, suggests that these rates are almost certainly inflated. Method and data transparency are moderate to low, making attempts to replicate or replicate studies difficult. Finally, management’s understanding of the replicability problem is hampered by the underutilization of methods developed in other disciplines. The review also reveals that, despite similar incentive structures, management, psychology, and economics exhibit strikingly different replication practises and approaches. Disciplines where replication and reproduction attempts are rare and frequently involve original study authors in replication attempts lack strong deterrents against questionable research practises; thus, they are less likely to produce replicable results. Despite the significance of this issue, replication practises in management research are largely studied separately from research in other social sciences. The lack of a well-established reference point makes it difficult to assess the state of replication research in our discipline and identify potential causes. The current systematic review is intended to address this problem. The replication practises in management and business-related fields accounting, advertising, communication, finance, forecasting, and marketing are compared to replication practises in psychology and economics in this systemic literature review (SLR). This strategy enables us to assess the magnitude of the problem against the backdrop of disciplines where research on replicability and reproducibility is significantly more advanced, such as psychology and economics, and it demonstrates how management research differs from other business-related disciplines that frequently employ similar methods and face similar challenges. Second, are these three disciplines—management, psychology, and economics—equally methodologically advanced in their investigations of the replicability and reproducibility issue? The answer to this question may open up new avenues for social science research on replicability and reproducibility issues. The so-called reproducibility crisis (Baker, 2016) examines three related but distinct issues: replicability, reproducibility, and method and data transparency. The ability to obtain similar results using newly acquired data is referred to as replication.

Conclusion

A replication study is thus an attempt to replicate an earlier study Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996 in order to provide additional data points about the studied relationship. Reproducibility is defined as the ability to reproduce previous results using published reports and data made available by the original study’s authors. A reproduction study attempts to replicate original results by using the same data and methods as the original study. Although reproductions and replications are sometimes confused, the fundamental difference between them suggests that they should be treated separately.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

The author’s declared that they have no conflict of interest.