Replication in entrepreneurship research: a further response to Delmar Benson Honig a,n,1 , Mikael Samuelsson b,1 a DeGroote School of Business McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S4M4 b Stockholm School of Economics, Box 6501,113 83 Stockholm, Sweden article info Article history: Received 22 February 2015 Received in revised form 18 March 2015 Accepted 18 March 2015 Keywords: Business planning Nascent entrepreneurship Study replication Data extension Venture level performance abstract This paper continues our debate examining pertinent issues related to scholarship, in particular, whether matters related to technical rigor eclipse the importance of causality, replicability, or that of underlying statistical and methodological assumptions. We report on specific data findings to further stimulate discussion of these important matters. & 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Both authors are elated that vigorous discussion and debate has now entered the discourse around entrepreneurship scholarship. This by itself stands as a highly significant outcome indicative of a maturing scholarly field, as indeed en- trepreneurship is becoming. We should all congratulate the editors of this journal and associated scholars regarding this important milestone. Before rushing off to celebrate at the bar, however, we wish to engage the debate generously initiated by Professor Delmar in his most recent response to our article. In doing so, our intention is both to clear the air, so to speak, regarding our own scholarly objectives, and to address some of the weaknesses we encountered in previously published material. Our goal continues to be to examine issues pertinent to our scholarship, for example, questions regarding whether issues related to technical rigor trump or eclipse the importance of causality or replicability, or of underlying statistical and methodological assumptions. In doing so, our intentions are not to spotlight any particular piece of research, but rather to stimulate discussion on these important matters. We were surprised that Professor Delmar responded to our article with a focus on the technical aspects of what he refers to as ‘misunderstandings', but failed to discuss the core issues underlying our assertions. As a reminder, our paper en- deavored to do the following: 1. Examine if it was possible to replicate two papers regarding the merits of business planning based on information provided in the original articles, and 2. extend the time frame and add performance data in terms of sales, etc., to the original work. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbvi Journal of Business Venturing Insights http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2015.03.001 2352-6734/& 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. n Corresponding author. Fax: þ1 9055218995. E-mail addresses: bhonig@McMaster.ca, bhonig@me.com (B. Honig), mikael.samuelsson@hhs.se (M. Samuelsson). 1 Both authors contributed equally to the writing of this article, and are listed alphabetically. Journal of Business Venturing Insights 3 (2015) 30–34