We examined the frequency of replications published in the two leading forecasting journals, the International Journal of Forecasting (IJF) and the Journal of Forecasting (JoF). Replications in the IJF and JoF comprised 9.4% of the empirical papers. This compares with various areas of management...

Over the past decade, researchers have expressed concerns over what seemed to be a paucity of replications. In line with this, editorial policies of some leading marketing journals have been modified to encourage more replications. We conducted an extension of a 1994 study see whether these...

When we first began publication of the Journal of Forecasting, we reviewed policies that were used by other journals and also examined the research on scientific publishing. Our findings were translated into a referee's rating form that was published in the journal [Armstrong (1982a)]. These...

A review of editorial policies of leading journals and of research relevant to scientific journals revealed conflicts between "science" and "scientists." Owing to these conflicts, papers are often weak on objectivity and replicability. Furthermore, papers often fall short on importance,...

Recently I completed a review of the empirical research on scientific journals (Armstrong 1982). This review provided evidence for an "author's formula," a set of rules that authors can use to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of their manuscripts. Authors should: (1) not pick an...

As HTM suggest, better measures would help But this is unlikely to occur, given the vast effort already devoted to this issue of assessing readability. I believe it is more important to study situations that will allow for further tests of the bafflegab hypothesis. Results from these studies...

Studies suggest a bias against the publication of null (p > .05) results. Instead of significance, we advocate reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals, and using replication studies. If statistical tests are used, power tests should accompany them