Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T06:33:52.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Replication, Research Transparency, and Journal Publications: Individualism, Community Models, and the Future of Replication Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2013

John Ishiyama*
University of North Texas


Recently, the importance of research transparency via replication studies has been greatly discussed in most of the social sciences, political science included. Indeed, as Gherghina and Katsanidou (2013) and Freese (2007) note, to some extent, the discussion has been prompted by the tremendous changes in publishing in the past decade or so. With the enormous expansion in data availability and instant publication made possible by the Internet, there now are many opportunities to verify the findings presented in the discipline's major journals. “Replication, replication” has not only become the mantra for political science, but for economics, psychology, and quantitative sociology as well. These developments opened a debate on how to best “guard the high standards or research practice and allow for the maximum use of current knowledge for the further development of science” (Gherghina and Katsanidou 2013, 1; for similar sentiments see King 1995).

Symposium: Openness in Political Science
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Dewald, William G., Thursby, Jerry G., and Anderson, Richard G.. 1986. “Replication in Empirical Economics: The Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking Project.” The Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 76: 587603.Google Scholar
Freese, Jeremy. 2007. “Replication Standards for Quantitative Social Science: Why Not Sociology?Sociological Methods and Research 36: 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funder, David. 2013. “Does ‘Failure to Replicate’ Mean Failed Science?” Live Science at (accessed September 30, 2013).Google Scholar
Gherghina, Sergiu, and Katsanidou, Alexia. 2013. “Data Availability in Political Science Journals.” European Political Science. Advance online publication, March 1; doi:10.1057/eps.2013.8. Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1995. “Cautious Reflections on a Data Archiving Policy for Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28: 473–76.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, James, Patrick, Ray, James L., and Russett, Bruce. 2003a. “Editors' Joint Statement: Minimum Replication Standards for International Relations Journals.” International Studies Perspectives 4: 105.Google Scholar
Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Metelits, C., and Strand, H.. 2003b. “Posting Your Data: Will You Be Scooped or Will You Be Famous.” International Studies Perspectives 4: 8997.Google Scholar
James, Patrick. 2003. “Replication Policies and Practices in International Studies Quarterly.” International Studies Perspectives 4: 8588.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1995. “Replication, Replication.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28: 443–99.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 2003. “The Future of the Replication Movement.” International Studies Perspectives 4: 100–05.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 2006. “Publication, Publication.” PS: Political Science and Politics 39: 119–25.Google Scholar
McCullough, B. D., McGeary, Kerry Anne, and Harrison, Teresa D.. 2006. “Lessons from the JMCB archive.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 38: 1093–107.Google Scholar
McCullough, B. D., and Vinod, H. D.. 2003. “Verifying the Solution from a Nonlinear Solver.” American Economic Review 93: 873–92.Google Scholar
Roediger, Henry. 2012. “Psychology's Woes and a Partial Cure: The Value of Replication.” APS Observer 25 (2) at (accessed September 30, 2013).Google Scholar
Wicherts, Jelte M., Borsboom, Denny, Kats, Judith, and Molenaar, Dylan. 2006. “The Poor Availability of Psychological Research Data for Reanalysis.” American Psychologist 61: 726–28.Google Scholar