Replications hardly possible: reporting practice in top-tier marketing journals

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of replications for science, and in particular the knowledge development process. Design/methodology/approach Descriptive research on the disclosure of sample parameters which are needed for replication was conducted. The analysis includes 2,982 studies from four top-tier marketing journals. Findings Published parameters are insufficient for replication and, therefore, impede knowledge development. Originality/value The paper offers a unique data set for further investigation. In total, 2,982 studies from the defined journals (Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research and Marketing Science) were analyzed. Hereby this paper enables insights into reporting practices of current marketing research and highlights the role of replication research in validating earlier research. It empirically shows, to the authors' best knowledge for the first time, that the insufficient reporting is one of the major reasons for the lack of replications.