Why do replications struggle to make an impact? Addressing their limited influence on belief in original claims
Josefina Weinerova
(University of Nottingham)
Lukas Wallrich
(Birkbeck Business School)
Flávio Azevedo
(Utrecht University)
Lukas Röseler
(University of Münster)
Short abstract
Despite their promise for scientific self-correction, replications rarely influence research agendas. We examine systemic disincentives, social/cognitive barriers, and dissemination practices that limit their impact. Finally, we discuss pathways and tools to improve replication visibility and uptake
Long abstract
Replication is a cornerstone of cumulative science, providing essential insights into the reliability of research findings. Yet, despite an increasing number of published replications, they often fail to affect the belief in and use of original findings. Replications are infrequently cited, often disregarded in theoretical discussions, and—except for striking exceptions—fail to shift research agendas. This raises a critical question: If replication is fundamental to scientific self-correction, why do its results so often fail to shape knowledge?
In this talk, we explore conceptual and empirical explanations for the limited impact of replications. First, we examine systemic disincentives, including publication biases, prestige hierarchies, and career incentives that prioritize novelty over verification. Second, we discuss cognitive and social-psychological barriers that lead researchers to dismiss or selectively interpret replication results. Third, we highlight how current dissemination practices fail to integrate replications with original studies, making them difficult to find and underutilized.
While large-scale replication efforts have begun to shape research practices, individual replication studies often struggle to achieve similar influence. We argue that improving the visibility and uptake of replications requires more than increasing their number—it demands structural, cultural, and technological shifts in how they are disseminated and discovered. We conclude by discussing potential solutions, including technical tools we are developing as part of the UKRI Metascience programme, designed to improve the discoverability and integration of replication evidence into scientific discourse.
Accepted Paper
Short abstract
Long abstract
Replication is a cornerstone of cumulative science, providing essential insights into the reliability of research findings. Yet, despite an increasing number of published replications, they often fail to affect the belief in and use of original findings. Replications are infrequently cited, often disregarded in theoretical discussions, and—except for striking exceptions—fail to shift research agendas. This raises a critical question: If replication is fundamental to scientific self-correction, why do its results so often fail to shape knowledge?
In this talk, we explore conceptual and empirical explanations for the limited impact of replications. First, we examine systemic disincentives, including publication biases, prestige hierarchies, and career incentives that prioritize novelty over verification. Second, we discuss cognitive and social-psychological barriers that lead researchers to dismiss or selectively interpret replication results. Third, we highlight how current dissemination practices fail to integrate replications with original studies, making them difficult to find and underutilized.
While large-scale replication efforts have begun to shape research practices, individual replication studies often struggle to achieve similar influence. We argue that improving the visibility and uptake of replications requires more than increasing their number—it demands structural, cultural, and technological shifts in how they are disseminated and discovered. We conclude by discussing potential solutions, including technical tools we are developing as part of the UKRI Metascience programme, designed to improve the discoverability and integration of replication evidence into scientific discourse.
Where next for replication, transparency and analysis of QRPs? (II)
Session 1 Tuesday 1 July, 2025, -