IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cbt/econwp/24-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Replications Really Receive Fewer Citations?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This study examines the commonly held belief that replication studies suffer from a significant citation penalty compared to original research. Analysing a sample of 428 replications in economics, we challenge the traditional method of comparing replication citation rates directly with the originals they replicate. We introduce three incentive-based metrics to assess replication citations: the 'same original counterfactuals,' 'same author counterfactuals,' and 'same issue counterfactuals.' These metrics provide a more appropriate comparison by matching replications with comparable non-replication papers in terms of subject area, authorship, and publication venue. Our findings suggest that replications do not invariably receive fewer citations; rather, the citation gap narrows substantially or even reverses when using alternative counterfactual measures. This study not only reframes the discussion about the value of replication in economics but also encourages the academic community to reassess the incentives for conducting and publishing replication studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Coupé & Thomas Logchies & W. Robert Reed, 2024. "Do Replications Really Receive Fewer Citations?," Working Papers in Economics 24/15, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    • Handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:24/15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.canterbury.ac.nz/cbt/econwp/2415.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Replications; Citations; Incentives; Academic Publishing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • A14 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Sociology of Economics
    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:24/15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Albert Yee (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/decannz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.