Purpose

This study aims to explore the degree to which the editorial policies of business and management journals explicitly or implicitly discourage replication studies.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper examines differences in editorial policy toward replication studies relative to journal quality, age and sub-discipline area. A total of 600 journals (listed as Q1 and Q2 in Scopus) were selected for the current study.

Findings

The results reveal that out of 600 selected journals, only 28 (4.7%) were explicitly open to considering replication studies, while 331 (55.2%) were neutral, being neither explicitly nor implicitly dismissive of replication studies. A further 238 (39.7%) were implicitly dismissive of replication studies, and the remaining 3 (0.5%) journals were explicitly disinterested in considering replication studies for publication. CiteScore and Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) of neutral journals were significantly lower than those of journals, which were implicitly discouraging replication research. With regard to the journals implicitly discouraging replications (238), journals in the subcategory of business and international management (51) had the highest percentage (21.4%) followed by strategy and management 30 (12.6%) and Organizational Behavior (OB) and Human Resource (HR) 25 (10.5%).

Originality/value

The available literature does not explore the degree to which the editorial policies of business and management journals explicitly or implicitly discourage replication studies. The current study attempts to address this gap in the literature. Given the lack of support for replications among business and management journals, the current paper sets forth the suggested steps which are deemed crucial for moving beyond the replication crisis in the business and management field.

中文翻译：

---

商业和管理期刊是反复制的吗？编辑政策分析

目的

本研究旨在探讨商业和管理期刊的编辑政策明确或隐含地阻止重复研究的程度。

设计/方法/方法

该论文研究了与期刊质量、年龄和子学科领域相关的复制研究的编辑政策差异。本次研究共选择了 600 种期刊（在 Scopus 中列为 Q1 和 Q2）。

发现

结果显示，在 600 份选定的期刊中，只有 28 份 (4.7%) 明确表示愿意考虑复制研究，而 331 份 (55.2%) 持中立态度，既没有明确也没有暗示对复制研究不屑一顾。另有 238 家 (39.7%) 含蓄地拒绝复制研究，其余 3 家 (0.5%) 期刊明确不考虑将复制研究出版。中性期刊的 CiteScore 和 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 显着低于期刊，这在暗中阻碍了重复研究。关于不鼓励重复的期刊 (238)，商业和国际管理子类别的期刊 (51) 的百分比最高 (21.4%)，其次是战略和管理 30 (12.

原创性/价值

现有的文献没有探讨商业和管理期刊的编辑政策在多大程度上明确或隐含地阻止复制研究。当前的研究试图解决文献中的这一空白。鉴于缺乏对商业和管理期刊之间复制的支持，本文提出了被认为对于克服商业和管理领域的复制危机至关重要的建议步骤。