Guest editorial: ONLY REPLICATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.197 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.025 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".