Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Replication in Second Language Research: Narrative and Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for the Field

Open access
Marsden, Emma, Morgan‐Short, Kara, Thompson, Sophie, Abugaber, David·2018·Language Learning

Abstract

Despite its critical role for the development of the field, little is known about replication in second language (L2) research. To better understand replication practice, we first provide a narrative review of challenges related to replication, drawing on recent developments in psychology. This discussion frames and motivates a systematic review, building on syntheses of replication in psychology, education, and L2 research. We coded 67 self‐labeled L2 replication studies found across 26 journals for 136 characteristics. We estimated a mean rate of 1 published replication study for every 400 articles, with a mean of 6.64 years between initial and replication studies and a mean of 117 citations of the initial study before a replication was published. Replication studies had an annual mean of 7.3 citations, much higher than averages in linguistics and education. Overlap in authorship between initial and replication studies and the availability of the initial materials both increased the likelihood of a replication supporting the initial findings. Our sample contained no direct (exact) replication attempts, and changes made to initial studies were numerous and wide ranging, which likely obscured, if not undermined, the interpretability of replication studies. To improve the amount and quality of L2 replication research, we propose 16 recommendations relating to rationale, nomenclature, design, infrastructure, and incentivization for collaboration and publication. Open Practices: This article has been awarded Open Materials and Open Data badges. All materials and data are publicly accessible via the IRIS Repository at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york:934328. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science:https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lang.12286

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Marsden, E., Morgan‐Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D.
Venue
Language Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-03-05
Volume
68
Issue
2
Pages
321-391
ISSN
  • 0023-8333 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9922
OpenAlex
W2807962483
Cited by
268
References
26
FWCI
5.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Replication in Second Language Research: Narrative and Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for the Field. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/lang.12286
The paper
Marsden, E., Morgan‐Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in Second Language Research: Narrative and Systematic Reviews and Recommendations for the Field. Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12286

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.