Guest editorial: ONLY REPLICATIONS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Little did we know that we would have to eat our words regarding replications.Despite recent compelling arguments presented for the necessity to undertake replication studies in our own area of international business and management (Dau et al., 2021;K€ ohler and Cortina, 2021;Tipu and Ryan, 2022) and the launch of Journal of Management Scientific Reports (JOMSR), a journal exclusively dedicated to publishing replication studies in management, the inertia seems to persist.Our valiant attempt to contribute to the First Decade Celebrations of the Journal of Global Mobility (JGM), by publishing this Special Issue (SI) entitled: "ONLY REPLICATIONS", almost did not materialize.We learned that what we wrote in our Call for Papers was indeed all true.Due to the existing bias of editors, authors are used to building "card houses" by stacking single studies on top of each other.Researchers themselves may be more motivated to make a unique contribution rather than to repeat the work of others.Building an academic career that includes publications of replication studies may not be attractive.Hence, the bias towards novel, path-breaking, positive results in our research market still seems as strong as ever (Dau et al., 2021;K€ ohler and Cortina, 2021;van Witteloostuijn, 2016).In our case, such prejudice among scholars translated into a low number of submissions received, almost capsizing our SI before it had started.Having narrowly escaped such a fate, we had to face the next extraordinary challenge.Due to the current preference for unique research contributions, still prompting some academic journals to be unsupportive or overtly dismissive of replication studies, thereby discouraging scholars from conducting them (Easley et al., 2013;Martin and Clarke, 2017;Tipu and Ryan, 2022), reviewers are not comfortable dealing with such manuscripts.This resulted in considerable efforts on our part to encourage reviewers to accept our invitations to review submitted manuscripts dealing with replications.We also found that some reviewers struggled to review replications because they either misunderstood or were confused about the objectives of the study.After considerable efforts and time invested in overcoming these challenges, we are extremely pleased to present the six articles making up the JGM SI: "ONLY REPLICATIONS".Since all the Associate Editors of JGM handled one of the manuscripts during the R&R process, they will introduce their "own" article.Margaret Shaffer (The evolving field of global mobility: responses to global volatility (2013-2022)): In this paper, the authors conducted a constructive replication of Dabi c et al.'s (2015) review of the expatriate literature.Through both bibliometric and narrative analyses of the expatriate literature published during the period of 2013-2022, they note the explosion of research that has taken place during the past decade.In contrast with Dabi c's findings that most of the literature focused on human resource management and was mostly based on a US perspective, more recent literature has adopted a more strategic focus and has begun to move away from a US-dominant viewpoint.This review culminates in several recommendations for future research and advocates for more interdisciplinary research that takes into consideration different levels of analysis.David S. A. Guttormsen (Being an "outsider in": skilled migrants' career strategies in local organizations): The authors conduct an empirical replication of a study published in Journal of Organizational Behavior by Jelena Zikic, Jaime Bonache and Jean-Luc Cerdin (2010) regarding career challenges and coping strategies among skilled migrants.Both studies are positioned within the qualitative research paradigm and deployed interviews as the chief
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,043 | 0,197 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,034 | 0,041 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,027 | 0,025 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».