A replication study worth replicating: A comment on Salmanowitz and Spamann
William H.J. Hubbard
International Review of Law and Economics, 2019, vol. 58, issue C, 1-2
In “Does the Supreme Court Really Not Apply Chevron When It Should?,” Natalie Salmanowitz and Holger Spamann provide an excellent example of what replication studies in law and economics can and should do. They follow in the footsteps of a highly cited study (Eskridge and Baer, 2008), illuminate its methodological limitations, and with a compelling research design, obtain distinctive results. Importantly, Salmanowitz and Spamann’s methodology is itself reproducible, and it suggests a template for researchers looking to replicate other studies or conduct original research on similar topics.
Keywords: Replication; Empirical legal studies; Chevron (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:58:y:2019:i:c:p:1-2
Access Statistics for this article
International Review of Law and Economics is currently edited by C. Ott, A. W. Katz and H-B. SchÃ¤fer
More articles in International Review of Law and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Haili He ().