Search results

This study aims to explore the degree to which the editorial policies of business and management journals explicitly or implicitly discourage replication studies.

The paper examines differences in editorial policy toward replication studies relative to journal quality, age and sub-discipline area. A total of 600 journals (listed as Q1 and Q2 in Scopus) were selected for the current study.

The results reveal that out of 600 selected journals, only 28 (4.7%) were explicitly open to considering replication studies, while 331 (55.2%) were neutral, being neither explicitly nor implicitly dismissive of replication studies. A further 238 (39.7%) were implicitly dismissive of replication studies, and the remaining 3 (0.5%) journals were explicitly disinterested in considering replication studies for publication. CiteScore and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) of neutral journals were significantly lower than those of journals, which were implicitly discouraging replication research. With regard to the journals implicitly discouraging replications (238), journals in the subcategory of business and international management (51) had the highest percentage (21.4%) followed by strategy and management 30 (12.6%) and Organizational Behavior (OB) and Human Resource (HR) 25 (10.5%).

The available literature does not explore the degree to which the editorial policies of business and management journals explicitly or implicitly discourage replication studies. The current study attempts to address this gap in the literature. Given the lack of support for replications among business and management journals, the current paper sets forth the suggested steps which are deemed crucial for moving beyond the replication crisis in the business and management field.

The article provides a conceptual replication and enrichment of the status quo bias theory in the specific context of understanding IT department user resistance and user adoption. The findings can assist technology renewals and associated change management professionals to assess and plan the adoption and active usage of human resource systems.

The authors used survey method to gather data. All items were based on prior literature. They administrated the survey to employees of GOODTECH (name changed), information systems (IS) department members, situated in France. They obtained 103 valid responses along with usage data from the system to run their path model, in order to validate the proposed research model.

The study offers an enriched user resistance model (URM) to understand why IT-savvy employees would resist or adopt new human resource tools. Apart from providing partial validity to status quo bias theory in the French context, the enriched model uses behavioral intention to use as an intermediate variable to explain the influence of two key constructs of the original theory: switching cost and switching benefits. This research provides a better explanatory power to understand the cause of user resistance and new IT use.

The sample size used in the study can be considered as a limitation, although power analysis reveals that the results are significant and valid. The context of the study is also limited to one country and to a specific type of IS implementation scenario. Since the purpose of the paper was to offer contextual theory enhancement, the findings are valid for this purpose.

Digital project managers are offered a framework to increase technology adoption of new human resource tools and evaluate how to reduce user resistance at times of technology renewals. Self-efficacy for change and colleagues’ opinion can indirectly impact behavioral intention to use via switching cost and switching benefit perceptions and thus reducing resistance perceptions as well as increasing adoption of new IT tools in post-implementation phases.

The paper enriches the well-established user resistance theory in IS domain in a context of human resource post-implementation phase by studying IT-savvy end user's perceptions. The paper demonstrates the need to integrate user adoption and user resistance variables in one parsimonious framework and extends support to emerging research on dual focus perspective.

Hedge fund replication gained considerable attention during the period surrounding 2007 when it was anticipated to become for hedge fund investors what index funds are for equity investors. The hedge fund replication concept only lacked a track record. This paper aims to present an updated evaluation.

Performance is evaluated on both a raw‐return basis and a risk‐adjusted basis using Fung and Hsieh's 8‐factor model. Particular emphasis is given to analyzing the performance of these products during the financial crisis and to highlighting the specific characteristics that distinguished them from their hedge fund cousins during this period.

The results show that the hedge fund replication space is definitely proving its existence as a credible hedge fund investment alternative. Talented hedge fund managers will always be in high demand, but they may have to just prove their high compensation a bit harder.

Although this study is based on a short sample period, the results indicate that hedge fund replication products delivered returns that were at par with the returns of hedge funds. The replication products performed comparatively well during the crisis probably as a result of having less exposure to illiquid assets.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this article uses the most extensive data set of 22 hedge fund replication products to analyze their performance.

Important research once thought unassailable has failed to replicate. Not just in economics, but in all science. The problem is therefore not in dispute nor are some of the causes, like low power, selective reporting, the file drawer effect, publicly unavailable data and so forth. Some partially worthy solutions have already been offered, like pre-registering hypotheses and data analysis plans.

This is a review paper on the replication crisis, which is by now very well known.

This study offers another partial solution, which is to remind researchers that correlation does not logically imply causation. The effect of this reminder is to eschew “significance” testing, whether in frequentist or Bayesian form (like Bayes factors) and to report models in predictive form, so that anybody can check the veracity of any model. In effect, all papers could undergo replication testing.

The author argues that this, or any solution, will never eliminate all errors.

This study aims to theorise and empirically test a model based on the hierarchy of effects behavioural learning approach (“do-think-feel”) to explain how travel during a crisis assists consumer well-being. The paper also examines whether the effect travel has on well-being is serially mediated by perceived risk and resilience and moderated by the personality trait of sensation-seeking.

This research uses a quasi-experimental design involving Australian consumers based on a sample of n = 307 who had travelled and n = 277 who had not during the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 584). A replication study (N = 290) is also undertaken to assess the robustness of the hierarchy of effects uncovered in the main study. Data were analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM) and Hayes PROCESS macro.

The results reveal travellers have significantly higher levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being than non-travellers, suggesting the transformative potential of travel experiences during a crisis. The transformative potential of travel is driven by perceived risk and psychological resilience, which mediate the relationship between travel frequency and well-being. Further, spotlight moderation analysis demonstrates that the effect of travel on well-being is most profound for those with lower levels of sensation-seeking. These relationships are also confirmed in the replication study.

This research is among the first in transformative service research (TSR) to test the mediators of perceived risk and resilience together in a singular study, showing how experiences such as travel are potentially transformative. It also evaluates personality traits such as sensation-seeking as a moderating factor, which is uncommon in TSR. Further, this study empirically validates a do–think–feel behavioural learning approach, as opposed to other hierarchy of effects sequences that are dominant in TSR and the wider services marketing literature.

Current publication practices in the scholarly (International) Business and Management community are overwhelmingly anti-Popperian, which fundamentally frustrates the production of scientific progress. This is the result of at least five related biases: the verification, novelty, normal science, evidence, and market biases. As a result, no one is really interested in replicating anything. In this essay, the author extensively argues what he believes is wrong, why that is so, and what we might do about this. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This is an essay, combining a literature review with polemic argumentation.

Only a tiny fraction of published studies involve a replication effort. Moreover, journal authors, editors, reviewers and readers are not interested in seeing nulls and negatives in print. This replication crisis implies that Popper’s critical falsification principle is actually thrown into the scientific community’s dustbin. Behind the façade of all these so-called new discoveries, false positives abound, as do questionable research practices meant to produce all this allegedly cutting-edge and groundbreaking significant findings. If this dismal state of affairs does not change for the good, (International) Business and Management research is ending up in a deadlock.

A radical cultural change in the scientific community, including (International) Business and Management, is badly needed. It should be in the community’s DNA to engage in the quest for the “truth” – nothing more, nothing less. Such a change must involve all stakeholders: scholars, editors, reviewers, and students, but also funding agencies, research institutes, university presidents, faculty deans, department chairs, journalists, policymakers, and publishers. In the words of Ioannidis (2012, p. 647): “Safeguarding scientific principles is not something to be done once and for all. It is a challenge that needs to be met successfully on a daily basis both by single scientists and the whole scientific establishment.”

Publication practices have to change radically. For instance, editorial policies should dispose of their current overly dominant pro-novelty and pro-positives biases, and explicitly encourage the publication of replication studies, including failed and unsuccessful ones that report null and negative findings.

This is an explicit plea to change the way the scientific research community operates, offering a series of concrete recommendations what to do before it is too late.

Replication is a primary self-correction device in science. In this paper, we have two aims: to examine how and when the results of replications are used in management and organization research and to use the results of this examination to offer guidelines for improving the self-correction process.

Study 1 analyzes co-citation patterns for 135 original-replication pairs to assess the direct impact of replications, specifically examining how often and when a replication study is co-cited with its original. In Study 2, a similar design is employed to measure the indirect impact of replications by assessing how often and when a meta-analysis that includes a replication of the original study is co-cited with the original study.

Study 1 reveals, among other things, that a huge majority (92%) of sources that cite the original study fail to co-cite a replication study, thus calling into question the impact of replications in our field. Study 2 shows that the indirect impact of replications through meta-analyses is likewise minimal. However, our analyses also show that replications published in the same journal that carried the original study and authored by teams including the authors of the original study are more likely to be co-cited, and that articles in higher-ranking journals are more likely to co-cite replications.

We use our results to formulate recommendations that would streamline the self-correction process in management research at the author-, reviewer- and journal-level. Our recommendations would create incentives to make replication attempts more common, while also increasing the likelihood that these attempts are targeted at the most relevant original studies.

The purpose of this study is to see if the affirmative results seen in the pilot study of the positive addiction recovery therapy (PART) programme are replicable and durable given a new cohort of participants. PART is a programme of work designed to improve the recovery and well-being of people in early addiction recovery. Its foundation is in the G-CHIME (growth, connectedness, hope, identity, meaning in life and empowerment) model of addiction recovery. It also uses the values in action character strengths and includes a set of recovery protection techniques.

This study uses a mixed method experimental design, incorporating direct replication and a follow-up study. Measures for recovery capital, well-being and level of flourishing are used to collect pre-, post- and one-month follow-up data from participants. The replication data analysis uses the non-parametric Wilcoxon test, and the follow-up analysis uses the Friedman test with pairwise comparison post hoc analysis. The eligibility criteria ensure participants (n = 35) are all in early addiction recovery, classified as having been abstinent for between three and six months.

This study found a statistically significant improvement in well-being, recovery capital and flourishing on completion of the PART programme. These findings upheld the hypotheses in the pilot study and the successful results reported. It also found these gains to be sustained at a one-month follow-up.

This study endorses the efficacy of the PART programme and its continued use in a clinical setting. It also adds further credibility to adopting a holistic approach when delivering interventions which consider important components of addiction recovery such as those outlined in the G-CHIME model.

This study adds to the existing evidence base endorsing the PART programme and the applied use of the G-CHIME model.

The purpose is to replicate and extend Ambulkar et al.’s (2015) work testing resource reconfiguration as a mediator of the supply chain disruption/firm resilience relationship and testing risk management infrastructure as a moderator. This study extends the work of Ambulkar in that it uses analysis of survey data gathered from manufacturing firms during an actual disruption event (COVID-19). The previous work is also in extended in that the authors include a pandemic disruption impact variable and supply chain performance is an expanded model.

Partial least squares structural equation modeling techniques were used to analyze data gathered from 184 US manufacturing managers during the height (Summer 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Two of four of Ambulkars et al.’s (2015) hypotheses were confirmed as relevant to firm resilience during the pandemic while two were not confirmed. Results also show that supply chain disruption orientation, risk management infrastructure and resource reconfiguration combine to improve firm resilience, which in turn improves supply chain performance while mitigating the disruption impact of COVID-19.

Previous work is replicated and extended, using data from an actual disruption event (COVID-19). This study presents a more comprehensive model using a newly developed and validated scale to measure pandemic impact and including supply chain performance.

A recent paper by Morris et al. (2013b) presented evidence that students can develop entrepreneurial competencies through international fieldwork. This paper explores whether the same results can be developed in a traditional classroom setting.

The study is a systematic replication of the Morris study with the addition of a matched pair, quasi-experimental design, with a self-replication. Data were collected on 13 self-reported competencies at the start of a semester from two groups using the Morris instrument. The treatment group was exposed to a curriculum designed to teach entrepreneurial competencies, and both groups were re-surveyed at the end of the semester. The process was then repeated with a different cohort, one year later, to replicate the initial study.

Five competencies saw significant increases in the first treatment group. However, only three of these competencies increased more in the treatment group than the control group. In the replication study, only one competency was significantly higher in the treatment group, and that competency was not one of the original three.

Educators and policymakers should select a curriculum that is valid and reliable. Entrepreneurship educators and policymaker should devote more time to evaluating the effectiveness of different pedagogical techniques for improving entrepreneurial competencies.

To the best of our knowledge, this is one of the first studies in entrepreneurship education to undertake a matched pair, quasi-experimental design with an in-study replication. The results indicate that serious inferential errors arise if simpler designs are used, even though such designs are the norm in entrepreneurship research.