LAUSR

Abstract Management literature may be populated by studies that report exaggerated levels of significance, and one potential solution to this problem is providing support for replication research. Drawing on the analysis of editorials published by top management journals between 1970 and 2015, I show how the issue of replication research was framed and discussed and how policy toward replication research was communicated to the readers. Only 67 of 1901 editorials published within that period invoke the issue of replication research (3.5% of all editorials). The analysis of editors' academic background indicates that replication research is mentioned mainly by editors with training in psychology, operations research, logistics, and STEM. Editors who discuss the issue usually provide symbolic and substantial support for such research. However, it is often twinned with language and argumentation that contribute to the negative perception of replications as a substandard form of research. Toward the end of the article, suggestions regarding the ways to address this problem are given.