The paper presented an overview of replication in psychology since 1900. The researchers conducted an exploratory examination on how the issue corresponds with other publications. The investigation was guided by two questions; how many replications are published and whether the number is changing over time. The researchers were also interested in determining whether the same were direct or conceptual and if the original findings were also replicated. They identified three types of replications as proposed by Lykken; literal, operational and constructive. However, the three were later formulated since the first required that the researcher obtains additional data from participants. Schmidt, for example, eliminated the beginning and changed the other two to direct and conceptual.
The researchers identified the leading 100 journals based on five-year impact factor. They used an online search engine and searched their publication history and identified the number of published articles with the search term. The number of articles with the term replica was determined, and their percentage to the total pieces in the journal was calculated. Similarly, the researchers computed the same every year to establish whether replication changed with time.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The researchers further selected 500 articles with the critical world and analyzed the same for reliability purposes of establishing the extent to which the search term was referring to new replications. If this was the case, the investigators then determined whether it was a conceptual or direct replica and if the same was a success or failure. The authors further recorded the number of times that the original articles and replication were filed. Lastly, they recorded the authorship of the selected, and in situations where there were no overlaps in authorship in the replicating and original papers, the same were coded as unique. The first author collected the entire data while the second was to score different articles using a similar approach like the first author.
The independent variable, in this case, was original articles, and the depended variable was the replicating articles. The researchers used a two-level independent variable. The study was designed to offer a comprehensive insight into replication in psychological research. The researchers, therefore, used secondary data from the top 100 journals and searched the key term replica to establish how past psychological studies used replication.
According to the study, approximately 1.57% of the publications used the keyword. Similarly, a more in-depth analysis of the articles that used the critical term identified that 68% of the same were replications thus setting a replication rate of 1.07%. The study further pointed out that the number of replications increased in 2000 thanks to the increase in the number of published articles. Replication rate increased by 1.84 times since 2000 when more articles were published in the ten years compared to earlier times.
According to the study, the direct and conceptual replications in different journals had similar findings to the original studies. The authors pointed out that replication were unlikely to be successful in the absence of overlap in authorship in the original and replicating articles. The authors further point out that replication is used in other fields like marketing, business and communication journals and their usage ranges from 1%-3%. However, its use in such areas is facing a downward trend unlike in psychology. The article presents the merits of replication and why the researcher should explore the field. The findings of this article are instrumental in determining the use of replication not only in psychology but also in other areas of study including business and communication
Reference
Makel, M., Plucker, J., & Hegarty, B. (2012). Replications in Psychology Research. Perspectives On Psychological Science , 7 (6), 537-542. doi: 10.1177/1745691612460688
