From 2008, a new section of the journal will be dedicated to academic studies which use a replication approach. We invite submissions of previously unpublished articles based on literal, approximate or constructive replication of a previous study or studies of an aspect of L2 education. In keeping with the survey characteristics of Language Teaching, we also encourage submissions of meta-analyses which attempt to combine or synthesise a series of comparable research replications. Papers can be based on a broad range of topics, including:

• • language teaching

• • teacher training

• • curriculum design and materials development

• • language learning

• • language testing

• • teacher education

• • neurolinguistics

• • bilingualism/bilingual education

• • sociolinguistics

• • psycholinguistics

literal (or exact) replication is the exact duplication of a previous methodologically sound study whereby the methods and conditions are repeated to confirm the original findings. Approximate (or systematic) replication involves the duplication of the methods of the original study as closely as possible but altering some variable (e.g. with a different subject group, age group, sex, etc). Constructive (or conceptual) replication means beginning with a similar problem statement as the original study but creating a new means or design to verify the original findings. Exact duplication of the original procedures is deliberately avoided. Thus, for example, different, but related, measures such as observation versus self-report or the use of quantitative and qualitative measures will help add to the body of knowledge obtained in the original report by validating the outcomes using two different techniques. Successful constructive replications provide stronger support for the original theory or hypothesis since evidence is provided that the outcomes are not limited to one particular methodology used. Authors should make it clear in their texts which kind of replication has been used, why and how.

Language Teaching's commitment to publishing replication studies reflects the editors' belief that such research should play a more significant role in the field than it has up to now. The potential for replicating studies in order to validate results is a requirement of scientific inquiry and should become more prominent in establishing and confirming the results of L2 learning and teaching studies. We encourage replication studies because we believe that such work is both useful and necessary. Firstly, replications can improve the way we interpret empirical research because they provide a ‘second opinion’ on the methods and results presented in the original work. Secondly, replications encourage researchers to introduce further variables or contexts alongside those used originally. Thus, evidence is provided about whether different approaches produce different results. If they do, judgments must be made about why this has happened and a further contribution to our knowledge is achieved. When results are consistent across two or more non-trivial studies, the basis for the observed relationship(s) is stronger than the evidence of each individual study, since results that have been replicated are considered more likely to be generalisable.

Among the principal factors reviewers consider when recommending a paper for publication are the following:

1. • The original replicated study is a significant contribution to the field, and so needful of replication, in terms of its content and/or its impact on the field, and published in a refereed journal within the field.

2. • The study replicates a previous study or studies in a sound and thorough manner which helps throw more light on the validity, reliability, and/or credibility of previous results and helps the field to generalise from them. In this way, the paper can be said to make a significant contribution to the field.

3. • The paper is presented in a way which makes it accessible to the broad readership of the journal and not only to specialists in the area covered.

4. • The paper has clear implications for people working in a wide variety of L2 learning and teaching contexts.

5. • The Introduction/Problem Statement section provides a satisfactory overview of the current situation in the field with respect to the object of study and explains the need for, and objectives of, the replication undertaken.

6. • The Methods and Analysis sections describe exactly what modifications were made with respect to the original study (or studies) and how these were carried out.

7. • The Methods and Analysis sections include enough detail to permit further replication.

8. • Results and Discussion/Conclusion sections comment comprehensively on key comparisons with the original study and/or previous replications. Suggestions are made for further research based on the findings.

9. • To facilitate the interpretation of the data and the future compilation of meta-analyses, reports on research using quantitative and/or statistical methods include an adequate and appropriate measure of effect sizes and alpha levels illustrating the main relationships highlighted in the research.

The manuscript is required about eight months ahead of publication to allow for the peer review process. Manuscripts must be submitted in a format which will enable anonymous reviewing. At this stage, acknowledgements, self-references and other forms of self-identification should be avoided. Authors' names and affiliations/addresses should appear only in correspondence accompanying the submission of manuscripts. The manuscript must be reader-friendly but need not conform to the house-style of Language Teaching. Only papers accepted for publication should strictly follow the LT formatting style specification.

All manuscripts should be sent in electronic form to the editor Dr Graeme Porte (gporte@gmail.com). Further information concerning Language Teaching may be obtained on the journal's web-page journals.cambridge.org/LTA.