What do ecology and evolutionary biology journal websites communicate about their policies and preferences regarding replication studies?

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint. You must log in to post a comment. There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint. Add a Comment You must log in to post a comment. Comments There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. The replication of prior research is a cornerstone of the scientific process and valued as such in ecology and evolutionary biology. However, it appears replication studies are nowhere near as prevalent in the published literature as might be expected if they were a routine part of building confidence in research findings. This may be due in part to the widespread perception of replication studies as a low-status activity. Journal policies have an important role in shaping researchers’ behaviour and willingness to conduct and publish replications. Many journals project a preference for novel methods, findings, or ideas, which discourages, and sometimes overtly precludes, submission of replication studies, while others actively invite them. Given this variety, authors have an interest in determining the extent to which replication studies are welcomed by their target journal, but this can be hard to identify from journal websites. We examined what information about journal policy on replication studies could be found on the websites of 233 ecology/evolutionary biology journals. We found that only 31 of 226 eligible journals (13.7%) provided any information about replication studies on their websites. Among journals that provided information on replications, discouraging or not accepting replication studies was more common than actively encouraging them, with only four journals (1.8%) explicitly encouraging replication studies. In addition, 75 (33%) journals used novelty-related language (i.e., language that may implicitly devalue replication work) on their websites. Together, our findings suggest that explicit policies on replication studies remain rare, and that unclear or discouraging signals about replication research are common in ecology and evolutionary biology journals. We therefore provide recommendations to improve the clarity and transparency of journal policies regarding replication studies. https://doi.org/10.32942/X27W95 Ecology and Evolutionary Biology open sciencereplicability, rigor, transparency, publishing, metaresearch, open science, replicability, rigor, transparency, publishing, metaresearch Published: 2026-04-24 19:09 Last Updated: 2026-04-24 19:09 CC BY Attribution 4.0 International Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare no conflicts of interest, but see Acknowledgements for a discussion of the impetus for this study. Data and Code Availability Statement: The data and code needed to reproduce the results and create figures have been deposited at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19683214 Language: English