trends of replication studies in applied linguistics journals: a systematicreview over half a century

Two major goals of conducting replication research are testing the generalizability and reliability of the original findings. despite its importance, few replications are however conducted in the field of applied linguistics (marsden et al., 2018). therefore, the present systematic review perused the replication studies in applied linguistics within the last 50 years (1970-2021). through a comprehensive search in 90 popular journals, drawing upon weber and campbell (2004), egbert (2007), jung (2004), and marsden et al. (2018) and using the key terms of extension, revisited, replication, 230 replication studies were identified. the results were presented across four broad themes of replication types, methodological orientations, research trends, and authorships. generally, the results showed that the majority of the replication studies were not labeled as replication or by their types on the basis of the current replication taxonomies introduced by marsden et al. (2018). moreover, we found that many of the replication studies were labeled as extension or revisited or mentioned as replication in the text. most importantly, despite the previous calls for replication study in the review of literature, the number of 230 replication studies over half a century in 90 journals was unsatisfactory. we concluded that the current replication taxonomies were not comprehensive enough. additionally, we recommended increasing the number of replication studies by involving early career researchers in such studies as their term projects and, more importantly, asking journal editors to dedicate special issues to replication studies to escalate more replications in the field.

Trends of Replication Studies in Applied Linguistics Journals: A SystematicReview Over Half a Century

Two major goals of conducting replication research are testing the generalizability and reliability of the original findings. Despite its importance, few replications are however conducted in the field of applied linguistics (Marsden et al., 2018). Therefore, the present systematic review perused the replication studies in applied linguistics within the last 50 years (1970-2021). Through a comprehensive search in 90 popular journals, drawing upon Weber and Campbell (2004), Egbert (2007), Jung (2004), and Marsden et al. (2018) and using the key terms of extension, revisited, replication, 230 replication studies were identified. The results were presented across four broad themes of replication types, methodological orientations, research trends, and authorships. Generally, the results showed that the majority of the replication studies were not labeled as replication or by their types on the basis of the current replication taxonomies introduced by Marsden et al. (2018). Moreover, we found that many of the replication studies were labeled as extension or revisited or mentioned as replication in the text. Most importantly, despite the previous calls for replication study in the review of literature, the number of 230 replication studies over half a century in 90 journals was unsatisfactory. We concluded that the current replication taxonomies were not comprehensive enough. Additionally, we recommended increasing the number of replication studies by involving early career researchers in such studies as their term projects and, more importantly, asking journal editors to dedicate special issues to replication studies to escalate more replications in the field.