Nature Journal Says It Supports Replications. But Then There’s Revealed Preference.
[From the article, “One team’s struggle to publish a replication attempt, part 3” by Mante Nieuwland, published at Retraction Watch]
“The purpose of this post was to provide a transparent, behind-the-scenes account of our replication study and what happened when we submitted our study to Nature Neuroscience. On the one hand, I can understand why Nature journals might be hesitant to publish replication studies. It might open the floodgates to a wave of submissions that challenge conclusions from publications in their journal (although that in itself is not necessarily a bad thing).”
“On the other hand, a few things from this case study stand out by clearly contradicting Nature’s commitment to replication and transparency. Nature Neuroscience triaged our study for lack of general interest, failed to follow their own submission procedure in terms of timeline, failed to follow their own policy on data and materials sharing, failed to correct important omissions in the academic record of the original study, and failed to provide, in my opinion, a fair review process (i.e. by relying on one reviewer who faulted us for the lack of clarity due to the original paper, and on one non-expert reviewer who mostly just questioned our intentions and disagreed with the publication format).”
To read the full account, starting from the beginning, click here.
For economics journals that explicitly state they publish replications, click here.
To see a list of replication studies that have actually been published by economics journals, click here.