Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/328050 
Year of Publication: 
2025
Series/Report no.: 
I4R Discussion Paper Series No. 270
Publisher: 
Institute for Replication (I4R), s.l.
Abstract: 
Consensus is crucial to authoritative science, as is replicability. Yet, in economics and the social sciences, the publication of contradictory replications often sparks fierce debates between replicators and original authors. This paper investigates whether experts can reach a consensus on a famous yet unsettled debate about the robustness of the seminal paper by Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (AJR, 2001) following a replication by Albouy (2012). We recruited 352 experts mainly from the pool of scholars citing one of the involved or similar articles. Through a structured online questionnaire, we assess the extent to which these experts align with AJR or Albouy. Our findings indicate no consensus on whether the original results hold after Albouy's replication, although there is a slight tendency among experts to side with the replicator. Exploratory heterogeneity analysis suggests that experts with greater academic credentials are more likely to align with Albouy. Our study demonstrates a potential way to scope scientific consensus formation and navigate replication debates and contested literatures.
Subjects: 
replication
scientific consensus
scientific credibility
expert survey
institutions and growth
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size





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