Replications and Editor Bias
Introduction
Tim Ambler adds comments to the replication thread
: : : Posting
: : dialog
With respect to the Replication Response, by John Rossiter
John, as ever, makes some good points. May I add another problem to all this, namely editor bias?
We all say we want a more solid "science" of marketing, which requires replication, but the reality is that journals favour novelty over replication. If I submitted a perfect replication of a published work in the same journal, thereby adding to generalizability, in John’s language by adding "respondent heterogeneity", what are the chances of it being published? Not to mention being charged with plagiarism.
When the legendary Frank Bass held a seminar, 15 years or so ago, to identify empirical generalizations in marketing, precious few fish were caught in the net.
Whether Scott Armstrong’s long held scepticism is justified or not, we can all agree that the science of marketing is not as robust as we would like it to be. Specifically, quite a few beliefs passed onto MBA students cannot be substantiated at all.
If the ÂÜÀòÉç¹ÙÍø wants to take this seriously, and we should, one possibility would be to create a separate section in each leading journal specifically for replication (or not) of important findings and a special seminar to identify the most potentially important findings from the past year, i.e those for which replication (or not) would be especially welcome. These findings may or may not be those in the award winning papers.
Best wishes
Tim (Ambler)