{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,30]],"date-time":"2026-08-30T18:13:45Z","timestamp":1788113625525,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":38,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,28]],"date-time":"2026-08-28T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1787875200000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Perspect Psychol Sci"],"abstract":"<jats:p>\n                    Replication\u2014duplicating methods to reexamine findings\u2014is the bedrock of science. To survey this foundation for psychological science, Makel et al. (2012) searched 100 psychology journals, finding that all-fields database searches for\n                    <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">replicat*<\/jats:italic>\n                    returned 2% to 3% of articles. Coding the contents of 500 such articles, they estimated that only 1% to 2% of psychology articles report new replication research. Four studies, reported here, reexamined these results\u2014including two preregistered replications with extension that sampled psychology articles (published pre-2012)\n                    <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">without<\/jats:italic>\n                    first searching databases. Nearly 20% of these 1,224 articles used \u201creplication\u201d or a variant term to identify replication as a study aim, report duplicating methods, or describe reexamining findings from prior studies. Moreover, authors frequently described reproducing procedures or retesting results without referring to \u201creplication.\u201d My investigation identified possible reasons why previous prevalence estimates for author-identified replication in behavioral research ranged from 1% to 76%, including what discipline, subdiscipline, report sections, study features, or terminology the researchers considered when identifying replications. Chief among these reasons is the fact that around 90% of articles that discuss replication and over 80% of articles with author-identified replications are missed by searching databases for\n                    <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">replicat*<\/jats:italic>\n                    because databases hold few details per article. Equivalent limitations of database searches may present similar challenges for metascience investigations and research syntheses.\n                  <\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1177\/17456916261452961","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,28]],"date-time":"2026-08-28T19:24:48Z","timestamp":1787945088000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Estimating the Prevalence of Replication Research Is Challenging, Not Least Because Even a Thorough Database Search Can Be Shallow"],"prefix":"10.1177","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-7127-8793","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Tim","family":"Rakow","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King\u2019s College London"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,28]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_5_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Banerjee R. Movahedazarhouligh S. Millen K. Luckner J. L. (2018). Building evidence in early childhood special education: A systematic review of replication intervention studies. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 37(4) 246\u2013256. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0271121417748197","DOI":"10.1177\/0271121417748197"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jesp.2013.10.005"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.4135\/9781036234942.n5"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Cesario J. (2014). Priming replication and the hardest science. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 40\u201348. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1745691613513470","DOI":"10.1177\/1745691613513470"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Chambers C. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton University Press. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/9781400884940","DOI":"10.1515\/9781400884940"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_7_1","volume-title":"Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics","author":"Clark H. H.","year":"1977","unstructured":"Clark H. H., Clark E. (1977). Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich."},{"key":"e_1_3_5_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Clark L. F. Martin L. L. Henry S. M. (1993). Instantiation interference and the change of standard effect: Context functions in reconstructive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64(3) 336\u2013346. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0022-3514.64.3.336","DOI":"10.1037\/\/0022-3514.64.3.336"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Clarke B. Lee P. Y. (K.) Schiavone S. R. Rhemtulla M. Vazire S. (2026). The prevalence of direct replication articles in top-ranking psychology journals. American Psychologist 81(2) 238\u2013253. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/amp0001385","DOI":"10.1037\/amp0001385"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Cook B. G. Collins L. W. Cook S. C. Cook L. (2016). A replication by any other name: A systematic review of replicative intervention studies. Remedial and Special Education 37(4) 223\u2013234. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0741932516637198","DOI":"10.1177\/0741932516637198"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Endress A. D. Hauser M. D. (2011). The influence of type and token frequency on the acquisition of affixation patterns: Implications for language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 37(1) 77\u201395. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/a0020210","DOI":"10.1037\/a0020210"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Frings C. Rothermund K. (2011). To be or not to be . . . included in an event file: Integration and retrieval of distractors in stimulus\u2013response episodes is influenced by perceptual grouping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 37(5) 1209\u20131227. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/a0023915","DOI":"10.1037\/a0023915"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Gelman A. (2018). Don\u2019t characterize replications as successes or failures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41 Article e128. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0140525X18000638","DOI":"10.1017\/S0140525X18000638"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Hardwicke T. E. Thibault R. T. Kosie J. E. Wallach J. D. Kidwell M. C. Ioannidis J. P. A. (2022). Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014\u20132017). Perspectives on Psychological Science 17(1) 239\u2013251. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1745691620979806","DOI":"10.1177\/1745691620979806"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"H\u00fcffmeier J. Mazei J. Schultze T. (2016). Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66 81\u201392. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jesp.2015.09.009","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jesp.2015.09.009"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_16_1","volume-title":"Psychology in crisis","author":"Hughes B. M.","year":"2018","unstructured":"Hughes B. M. (2018). Psychology in crisis. Palgrave."},{"key":"e_1_3_5_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Ioannidis J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6) 645\u2013654. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1745691612464056","DOI":"10.1177\/1745691612464056"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Kelly C. W. Chase L. J. Tucker R. K. (1979). Replication in experimental communication research: An analysis. Human Communication Research 5(4) 338\u2013342. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00646.x","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00646.x"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"LeBel E. P. (2015). A new replication norm for psychology. Collabra 1(1) Article 4. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1525\/collabra.23","DOI":"10.1525\/collabra.23"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Lemons C. J. King S. A. Davidson K. A. Berryessa T. L. Gajjar S. A. Sacks L. H. (2016). An inadvertent concurrent replication: Same roadmap different journey. Remedial and Special Education 37(4) 213\u2013222. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0741932516631116","DOI":"10.1177\/0741932516631116"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Liang G. Newell B. R. Rakow T. Yechiam E. (2019). Further investigations of how rare disaster information affects risk taking: A registered replication report. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 26(4) 1411\u20131417. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3758\/s13423-019-01594-w","DOI":"10.3758\/s13423-019-01594-w"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1037\/h0026141"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"M\u00e4debach A. Oppermann F. Hantsch A. Curda C. Jescheniak J. D. (2011). Is there semantic interference in delayed naming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 37(2) 522\u2013538. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/a0021970","DOI":"10.1037\/a0021970"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Makel M. C. Plucker J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher 43(6) 304\u2013316. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3102\/0013189X14545513","DOI":"10.3102\/0013189X14545513"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_25_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Makel M. C. Plucker J. A. Freeman J. Lombardi A. R. Simonsen B. Coyne M. D. (2016). Replication of special education research: Necessary but far too rare. Remedial and Special Education 37 205\u2013212. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0741932516646083","DOI":"10.1177\/0741932516646083"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Makel M. C. Plucker J. A. Hegarty B. (2012). Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(6) 537\u2013542. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1745691612460688","DOI":"10.1177\/1745691612460688"},{"issue":"4","key":"e_1_3_5_27_1","first-page":"85","article-title":"Editorial bias against replication research","volume":"5","author":"Neuliep J. W.","year":"1990","unstructured":"Neuliep J. W., Crandall R. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 85\u201390.","journal-title":"Journal of Social Behavior and Personality"},{"issue":"6","key":"e_1_3_5_28_1","first-page":"1","article-title":"Everyone was wrong: There are lots of replications out there","volume":"8","author":"Neuliep J. W.","year":"1993","unstructured":"Neuliep J. W., Crandall R. (1993a). Everyone was wrong: There are lots of replications out there. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 8(6), 1\u20138.","journal-title":"Journal of Social Behavior & Personality"},{"issue":"6","key":"e_1_3_5_29_1","first-page":"21","article-title":"Reviewer bias against replication research","volume":"8","author":"Neuliep J. W.","year":"1993","unstructured":"Neuliep J. W., Crandall R. (1993b). Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(6), 21\u201329.","journal-title":"Journal of Social Behavior and Personality"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_30_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Newell B. R. Rakow T. (2011). Revising beliefs about the merit of unconscious thought: Evidence in favor of the null hypothesis? Social Cognition 29 711\u2013726. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1521\/soco.2011.29.6.711","DOI":"10.1521\/soco.2011.29.6.711"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_31_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Nosek B. A. Errington T. M. (2020). What is replication? PLOS Biology 18 Article e3000691. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1371\/journal.pbio.3000691","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pbio.3000691"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_32_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Pridemore W. A. Makel M. C. Plucker J. A. (2018). Replication in criminology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Criminology 1 19\u201338. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1146\/annurev-criminol-032317-091849","DOI":"10.1146\/annurev-criminol-032317-091849"},{"issue":"2","key":"e_1_3_5_33_1","article-title":"Psychology\u2019s woes and a partial cure: The value of replication","volume":"25","author":"Roediger H. L.","year":"2012","unstructured":"Roediger H. L.III. (2012). Psychology\u2019s woes and a partial cure: The value of replication. Academic Observer, 25(2), 9.","journal-title":"Academic Observer"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_34_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Schauer J. M. (2022). Replicability and meta-analysis. In O\u2019Donohue W. Masuda A. Lilienfeld S. (Eds.) Avoiding questionable research practices in applied psychology (pp. 301\u2013342). Springer. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-031-04968-2_14","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-031-04968-2_14"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_35_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Schmidt S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology 13 90\u2013100. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/a0015108","DOI":"10.1037\/a0015108"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_36_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Simons D. J. (2014). The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9(1) 76\u201380. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1745691613514755","DOI":"10.1177\/1745691613514755"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_37_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Spellman B. A. (2015). A short (personal) future history of Revolution 2.0. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(6) 886\u2013899. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1745691615609918","DOI":"10.1177\/1745691615609918"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_38_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Stroebe W. Strack F. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 59\u201371. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1745691613514450","DOI":"10.1177\/1745691613514450"},{"key":"e_1_3_5_39_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Zwaan R. A. Etz A. Lucas R. E. Donnellan M. B. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 41 Article e120. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0140525X17001972","DOI":"10.1017\/S0140525X18000961"}],"container-title":["Perspectives on Psychological Science"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/17456916261452961","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1177\/17456916261452961","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1177\/17456916261452961","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,30]],"date-time":"2026-08-30T17:17:17Z","timestamp":1788110237000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/17456916261452961"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,28]]},"references-count":38,"alternative-id":["10.1177\/17456916261452961"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/17456916261452961","relation":{},"ISSN":["1745-6916","1745-6924"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1745-6916","type":"print"},{"value":"1745-6924","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,28]]},"article-number":"17456916261452961"}}