2025-06-26 –, Second floor 213
It is increasingly common for editors to ask for high-powered, direct replications of studies when papers are invited for revision. However, norms regarding what to do when these replications fail do not exist, either for authors attempting to reframe their findings, or reviewers/editors reevaluating the work. A lack of clear expectations and norms risks not only confusion and consternation, but possibly reinforcing perverse publication incentives where only “statistically significant” results are valued rather than strong and valid tests of theoretical questions. This Unconference will begin with the organizer and participants discussing their experiences with failed replications during peer review. The group will then discuss the “ideal” way these are handled, from the perspective of both authors and reviewers/editors. Given interest, the group will then potentially organize to produce a short methodological manuscript that addresses these questions and provides guidance for editors and authors confronting these issues.
