A fundamental principle of responsible scientific research is replication. Replication provides independent verification of previously reported findings and improves our understanding of observed phenomena by removing researcher bias, strengthening existing evidence and questioning past conclusions. Replication is an essential component of the self-correcting nature of science but, for too long the scientific community has overlooked the benefits of replication due to its perceived lack of novelty. However, a shift in attitudes has been making its way through various scientific disciplines, with finance now having its turn. In this study we survey the authors of Pacific-Basin Finance Journal replication studies to explore their motivations, experiences and seek their feedback on the specific process utilized by the journal to undertake the important task of facilitating the publication of replications.
This pre-registered study executes the empirical design approved in the associated pre-registered report (Chai et al., 2024) to survey authors of replication studies at the Pacific-Basin Finance Journal (PBFJ). The survey aims to understand their motivations, challenges encountered, and perceived benefits, as well as their evaluations of the replication framework. The findings reveal strong support for replication studies, with participants emphasizing their role in fostering a more robust research culture in financial economics. However, challenges in reproduction and replication frequently arise due to issues with the accessibility and quality of open-source materials provided in the original studies. Our results also suggest that PBFJ's initiative offers a replicable model for other journals, providing actionable insights to address the replication crisis. Key recommendations include providing academic recognition for replication work, standardizing data transparency mandates, and promoting cross-disciplinary dialogue on robust research practices.