Replication Research Symposium

"You break it, you buy it" is the pottery barn rule that Srivastava (2012) suggested scientific to adopt with regards to publishing replications: They should publish replications for all original studies that they chose to publish. More than one decade later, journals do not adopt this rule, opening a gap for high-quality and researcher-led journals. I discuss how Replication Research is thought of a go-to journal for replication studies and why original journals should not be authors' first choice for publishing replications.

Repetition in research is often undervalued, dismissed as redundant or unoriginal. Yet, it plays a crucial role in verifying findings, refining methods, and building reliable knowledge. This talk explores different forms of repetitive research, its value across scientific disciplines, highlighting who benefits from it, and how it can drive innovation rather than hinder it. Embracing repetitive research can improve scientific credibility, support early-career researchers, and foster a more open and collaborative research culture.

We assessed all replications published in the top 100 psychology journals in the 10 years after the so-called replication crisis and investigated the nature of the replications, and the reasons provided for conducting the replications. We found that the replication rate is only half a percent across journals and that a predominantly novelty-oriented research culture even pervades the replication landscape.

In this moderated discussion, we will explore the types of studies that Replication Research should accept, focusing on the grey area between conceptual replications and traditional research. Moreover, we will discuss what the "added value" of a reproduction should be and how to prevent selection of articles based on their results.

What is the ideal way that FORRT can support researchers conducting replications and reproductions? What could a replication ecosystem look like? We will share our vision of teh FORRT Replication Hub and discuss the nodes centered around the process from planning a replication to implementing it into teaching.

This discussion will revolve around two main themes:
- The high quality standards that we aim for with R2 will require considerable resources. How do we prevent lengthy review and reproducibility check times while still guaranteeing rigor?
- The core ideal of the journal is openness, but does this refer rather to the mandate of open data or to the inclusiveness and understanding brought forward to somebody who could risk their career in publishing a dataset that took years to create?

During the Friday morning hackathons, participants will create or revise R2 guidelines about 'article types' or 'TOP guidelines', incorporating the products of our previous discussions.

Each hackathon group presents their results in a 10-15 minute talk and gathers feedback from the plenum.

Concluding the Replication Research Symposium, I will summarize the efforts that have led up to its foundation and announce the action plan for the launch and starting-phase.