Abstract
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 factor 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 OB and 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.