Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/110735
Authors: 
Clemens, Michael A.
Year of Publication: 
2015
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers 9000
Abstract: 
The welcome rise of replication tests in economics has not been accompanied by a single, clear definition of replication. A discrepant replication, in current usage of the term, can signal anything from an unremarkable disagreement over methods to scientific incompetence or misconduct. This paper proposes an unambiguous definition of replication, one that reflects currently common but unstandardized use. It contrasts this definition with decades of unsuccessful attempts to standardize terminology, and argues that many prominent results described as replication tests – in labor, development, and other fields of economics – should not be described as such. Adopting this definition can improve incentives for researchers, encouraging more and better replication tests.
Subjects: 
replication
robustness
transparency
open data
ethics
reproducible
replicate
misconduct
fraud
error
code
registry
JEL: 
B40
C18
C80
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
324.38 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.