The role of replication studies in ecology

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. The published version of this Preprint is available: This is version 1 of this Preprint.

This Preprint has no visible version.

Download Preprint
Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.


Download Preprint

Supplementary Files

Hannah Fraser, Timothy H Parker , Fiona Fidler, Ashley Barnett


Recent large-scale projects in other disciplines have shown that results often fail to replicate when studies are repeated. The conditions contributing to this problem are also present in ecology but there have not been any equivalent replication projects. Here we examine ecologists’ understanding of and opinions about replication studies. When asked what percentage of ecological studies are replicated, the median response given by ecologists is 10%. The majority of ecologists in our sample considered replication studies to be important (97%), not prevalent enough (91%), worth funding even given limited resources (61%), and suitable for publication in all journals (62%). However, there is a disconnect between this enthusiasm and the prevalence of direct replication studies in the literature which, is much lower than our participants’ estimate of 10%. This may be explained by the obstacles our participants identified including the difficulty of conducting replication studies and of funding and publishing them. We conclude by offering suggestions for how replications could be better integrated into ecological research.



Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Life Sciences, Research Methods in Life Sciences


conceptual replication, direct replication, ecology, generalisability, open science, Repeatability, Replicability, reproducibility, transparency, validity


Published: 2019-10-10 20:55


CC-By Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International