In principle, successful replications should enhance the credibility of scientific findings, and failed replications should reduce credibility. Yet it is unknown how replication typically affects the influence of research. We analyzed the citation history of 98 articles. Each was published by a selective psychology journal in 2008 and subjected to a replication attempt published in 2015. Relative to successful replications, failed replications reduced citations of replicated studies by only 5% to 9% on average, an amount that did not differ significantly from zero. Less than 3% of articles citing the original studies cited the replication attempt. It does not appear that replication failure much reduced the influence of nonreplicated findings in psychology. To increase the influence of replications, we recommend (a) requiring authors to cite replication studies alongside the individual findings and (b) enhancing reference databases and search engines to give higher priority to replication studies.

原则上，成功的重复应该提高科学发现的可信度，而失败的重复应该降低可信度。然而，尚不清楚复制通常如何影响研究的影响力。我们分析了 98 篇文章的引用历史。每项研究均于 2008 年由一家选择性心理学期刊发表，并在 2015 年发表了一次复制尝试。相对于成功的复制，失败的复制使重复研究的引用平均仅减少 5% 至 9%，这一数字与其他研究没有显着差异。零。引用原始研究的文章中只有不到 3% 引用了复制尝试。重复失败似乎并没有大大降低心理学中未重复发现的影响。为了增加复制的影响力，我们建议（a）要求作者在个人发现的同时引用复制研究，以及（b）增强参考数据库和搜索引擎，以更高的优先级考虑复制研究。