Are Replication Studies Infrequent Because of Negative Attitudes? Insights From a Survey of Attitudes and Practices in Second Language Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Replication is a research methodology designed to verify, consolidate, and generalize knowledge and understanding within empirical fields of study. In second language studies, however, reviews share widespread concern about the infrequency of replication. A common but speculative explanation for this situation is that replication studies are not valued because they lack originality and/or innovation. To better understand and respond to the infrequency of replication in our field, 354 researchers were surveyed about their attitudes toward replication and their practices conducting replication studies. Responses included world-wide participation from researchers with and without replication experience. Overall, replications were evaluated as relevant and valuable to the field. Claims that replication studies lack originality/innovation were not supported. However, dissemination issues were identified: half of published replication studies lacked explicit labeling and one quarter of completed replications were unpublished. Explicit labeling of replication studies and training in research methodology and dissemination can address this situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".