
AbstractRecent large‐scale projects in other disciplines have shown that results often fail to replicate when studies are repeated. The conditions contributing to this problem are also present in ecology, but there have not been any equivalent replication projects. Here, we survey ecologists' understanding of and opinions about replication studies. The majority of ecologists in our sample considered replication studies to be important (97%), not prevalent enough (91%), worth funding even given limited resources (61%), and suitable for publication in all journals (62%). However, there is a disconnect between this enthusiasm and the prevalence of direct replication studies in the literature which is much lower (0.023%: Kelly 2019) than our participants' median estimate of 10%. This may be explained by the obstacles our participants identified including the difficulty of conducting replication studies and of funding and publishing them. We conclude by offering suggestions for how replications could be better integrated into ecological research.
330, Evolution, Transparency, bepress|Life Sciences|Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 2309 Nature and Landscape Conservation, conceptual replication, Behavioral Ecology, bepress|Life Sciences, Replicability, open science, replicability, repeatability, generalizability, QH540-549.5, bepress|Life Sciences|Research Methods in Life Sciences, Ecology, Generality, Reproducibility, 1105 Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, direct replication, 2303 Ecology, Publication Bias, Academic Practice in Ecology and Evolution
330, Evolution, Transparency, bepress|Life Sciences|Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 2309 Nature and Landscape Conservation, conceptual replication, Behavioral Ecology, bepress|Life Sciences, Replicability, open science, replicability, repeatability, generalizability, QH540-549.5, bepress|Life Sciences|Research Methods in Life Sciences, Ecology, Generality, Reproducibility, 1105 Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, direct replication, 2303 Ecology, Publication Bias, Academic Practice in Ecology and Evolution
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 57 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
