Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article presents the results of three studies on practices in and attitudes toward replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies. The first study reports on a survey in which 52 researchers in translation and interpreting with experience in empirical research answered questions about their practices in and attitudes toward replication. The survey data were complemented by a bibliometric study of publications indexed in the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation (BITRA) (Franco Aixelá 2001–2019) that explicitly stated in the title or abstract that they were derived from a replication. In a second bibliometric study, a conceptual replication of Yeung’s (2017) study on the acceptance of replications in neuroscience journals was conducted by analyzing 131 translation and interpreting journals. The article aims to provide evidence-based arguments for initiating a debate about the need for replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies and its implications for the development of the discipline.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alves, Fabio, Adriana Pagano, and Igor da Silva
    2011 “Towards an Investigation of Reading Modalities in/for Translation: An Exploratory Study Using Eye-Tracking Data.” InCognitive Explorations of Translation, edited bySharon O’Brien, 175–196. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Monya, and Dan Penny
    2016 “Is There a Reproducibility Crisis?” Nature533 (7604): 452–454. 10.1038/533452a
    https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a [Google Scholar]
  3. Begley, C. Glenn
    2013 “Six Red Flags for Suspect Work.” Nature497 (7450): 433–434. 10.1038/497433a
    https://doi.org/10.1038/497433a [Google Scholar]
  4. Biblioteca d’Humanitats
    Biblioteca d’Humanitats 2013–2019 RETI: revistes dels estudis de Traducció i Interpretació: Indicadors de qualitat. AccessedNovember 14, 2018. www.bib.uab.cat/human/acreditacions/planes/publiques/revistes/eti.php?area=eti&menuidioma=eng
  5. Cesario, Joseph
    2014 “Priming, Replication, and the Hardest Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science9 (1): 40–48. 10.1177/1745691613513470
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613513470 [Google Scholar]
  6. Crandall, Christian S., and Jeffrey W. Sherman
    2016 “On the Scientific Superiority of Conceptual Replications for Scientific Progress.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 93–99. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Everitt, Brian S.
    1998The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fabrigar, Leandre R., and Duane T. Wegener
    2016 “Conceptualizing and Evaluating the Replication of Research Results.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 68–80. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fanelli, Daniele
    2009 “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.” PLoS ONE4 (5): 1–11. 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 “‘Positive’ Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences.” PLoS ONE5 (4): e10068. 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010068 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2018 “Opinion: Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115 (11): 2628–2631. 10.1073/pnas.1708272114
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708272114 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferguson, Christopher J., and Moritz Heene
    2012 “A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories.” Perspectives on Psychological Science7 (6): 555–561. 10.1177/1745691612459059
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059 [Google Scholar]
  13. Feyerabend, Paul
    1978Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fiedler, Klaus, and Norbert Schwarz
    2016 “Questionable Research Practices Revisited.” Social Psychological and Personality Science7 (1): 45–52. 10.1177/1948550615612150
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150 [Google Scholar]
  15. Franco Aixelá, Javier
    2001–2019 BITRA (Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation). AccessedNovember 13, 2018. https://dti.ua.es/en/bitra/introduction.html
  16. Gile, Daniel
    1991 “Methodological Aspects of Interpretation (and Translation) Research.” Target3 (2): 153–174. 10.1075/target.3.2.03gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.3.2.03gil [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000 “The History of Research into Conference Interpreting.” Target12 (2): 297–321. 10.1075/target.12.2.07gil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.12.2.07gil [Google Scholar]
  18. Graham, Loren, and Jean-Michel Kantor
    2007 ““Soft” Area Studies versus “Hard” Social Science: A False Opposition.” Slavic Review66 (1): 1–19. 10.2307/20060144
    https://doi.org/10.2307/20060144 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gupta, Brij Mohan, and S. M. Dhawan
    2019 “Machine Translation Research: A Scientometric Assessment of Global Publications Output during 2007 16.” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology39 (1): 31–38. 10.14429/djlit.39.1.13558
    https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.39.1.13558 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hale, Sandra, and Jemina Napier
    2013Research Methods in Interpreting. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hedges, Larry V.
    1987 “How Hard Is Hard Science, How Soft Is Soft Science? The Empirical Cumulativeness of Research.” American Psychologist42 (5): 443–455. 10.1037/0003‑066X.42.5.443
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.5.443 [Google Scholar]
  22. Holmes, James S.
    (1972) 1988 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” InTranslated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, edited byRaymond van den Broeck, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. House, Juliane
    2013 “Towards a New Linguistic-Cognitive Orientation in Translation Studies.” Target25 (1): 46–60. 10.1075/target.25.1.05hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.05hou [Google Scholar]
  24. Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang, and Sarah E. Shannon
    2005 “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research15 (9): 1277–1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hüffmeier, Joachim, Jens Mazei, and Thomas Schultze
    2016 “Reconceptualizing Replication as a Sequence of Different Studies: A Replication Typology.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 81–92. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hurtado Albir, Amparo, and Fabio Alves
    2009 “Translation as a Cognitive Activity.” InThe Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, edited byJeremy Munday, 54–73. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ioannidis, John P. A.
    2005 “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine2 (8): 696–701. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jussim, Lee, Jarret T. Crawford, Stephanie M. Anglin, Sean T. Stevens, and Jose L. Duarte
    2016 “Interpretations and Methods: Towards a More Effectively Self-Correcting Social Psychology.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology66: 116–133. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuhn, Thomas S.
    1962The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Li, Defeng
    2004 “Trustworthiness of Think-Aloud Protocols in the Study of Translation Processes.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics14 (3): 301–313. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2004.00067.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00067.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Minhua
    2011 “Methodology in Interpreting Studies: A Methodological Review of Evidence-Based Research.” InAdvances in Interpreting Research: Inquiry in Action, edited byBrenda Nicodemus and Lauria A. Swabey, 85–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.99.08liu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.99.08liu [Google Scholar]
  32. Makel, Matthew C., Jonathan A. Plucker, and Boyd Hegarty
    2012 “Replications in Psychology Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science7 (6): 537–542. 10.1177/1745691612460688
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460688 [Google Scholar]
  33. Martin, G. N., and Richard M. Clarke
    2017 “Are Psychology Journals Anti-Replication? A Snapshot of Editorial Practices.” Frontiers in Psychology8: 1–6. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00523 [Google Scholar]
  34. Mellinger, Christopher D., and Thomas A. Hanson
    2017Quantitative Research Methods in Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Moonesinghe, Ramal, Muin J. Khoury, and A. Cecile J. W. Janssens
    2007 “Most Published Research Findings Are False – But a Little Replication Goes a Long Way.” PLoS Medicine4 (2): 218–221. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040028 [Google Scholar]
  36. Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
    2010 “Leave No Stone Unturned: On the Development of Cognitive Translatology.” Translation and Interpreting Studies5 (2): 145–162. 10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.5.2.01mun [Google Scholar]
  37. 2014 “A Blurred Snapshot of Advances in Translation Process Research.” MonTIspecial issue – Minding Translation1: 49–84.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Neunzig, Wilhelm, and Helena Tanqueiro
    2007Estudios empíricos en traducción. Enfoques y métodos. Girona: Documenta Universitaria.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Brien, Sharon
    ed. 2011Cognitive Explorations of Translation. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2013 “The Borrowers: Researching the Cognitive Aspects of Translation.” Target25 (1): 5–17. 10.1075/target.25.1.02obr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.02obr [Google Scholar]
  41. Open Science Collaboration
    Open Science Collaboration 2015 “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science349 (6251): aac4716. 10.1126/science.aac4716
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 [Google Scholar]
  42. Orero, Pilar, Stephen Doherty, Jan-Louis Kruger, Anna Matamala, Jan Pedersen, Elisa Perego, Pablo Romero-Fresco, Sara Rovira-Esteva, Olga Soler-Vilageliu, and Agnieszka Szarkowska
    2018 “Conducting Experimental Research in Audiovisual Translation (AVT): A Position Paper.” Journal of Specialised Translation30: 105–126.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Pardo, Antonio, and Ricardo San Martín
    2012Análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud II. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pashler, Harold, and Christine R. Harris
    2012 “Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined.” Perspectives on Psychological Science7 (6): 531–536. 10.1177/1745691612463401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463401 [Google Scholar]
  45. Polit, Denise F., and Cheryl Tatano Beck
    2010 “Generalization in Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Myths and Strategies.” International Journal of Nursing Studies47 (11): 1451–1458. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004 [Google Scholar]
  46. Popper, Karl
    1959The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ravitch, Sharon M., and Nicole Mittenfelner Carl
    2016Qualitative Research: Bridging the Conceptual, Theoretical and Methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rovira-Esteva, Sara, and Javier Franco Aixelá
    2018 “Bibliometric Tools.” InA History of Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, Concepts, Effects, edited byLieven D’hulst and Yves Gambier, 117–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.142.15rov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.142.15rov [Google Scholar]
  49. Saldanha, Gabriela, and Sharon O’Brien
    2014Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315760100
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315760100 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schmidt, Stefan
    2009 “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology13 (2): 90–100. 10.1037/a0015108
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108 [Google Scholar]
  51. Simons, Daniel J.
    2014 “The Value of Direct Replication.” Perspectives on Psychological Science9 (1): 76–80. 10.1177/1745691613514755
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514755 [Google Scholar]
  52. Snell-Hornby, Mary
    2006The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.66
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.66 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tymoczko, Maria
    2002 “Connecting the Two Infinite Orders: Research Methods in Translation Studies.” InCrosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II: Historical and Ideological Issues, edited byTheo Hermans, 9–25. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2005 “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies.” Meta50 (4): 1082–1097. 10.7202/012062ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/012062ar [Google Scholar]
  55. Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan, Ruud Wetzels, Denny Borsboom, Han L. J. van der Maas, and Rogier A. Kievit
    2012 “An Agenda for Purely Confirmatory Research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science7 (6): 632–638. 10.1177/1745691612463078
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078 [Google Scholar]
  56. Way, Catherine
    2014 “Structuring a Legal Translation Course: A Framework for Decision-Making in Legal Translator Training.” InThe Ashgate Handbook of Legal Translation, edited byLe Cheng, King-Kui Sin, and Anne Wagner, 135–152. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Yeung, Andy W. K.
    2017 “Do Neuroscience Journals Accept Replications? A Survey of Literature.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience11: 1–6. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00468
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00468 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zanettin, Federico, Gabriela Saldanha, and Sue-Ann Harding
    2015 “Sketching Landscapes in Translation Studies: A Bibliographic Study.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology23 (2): 37–41. 10.1080/0907676X.2015.1010551
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2015.1010551 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error