PREreview of Female Signatories and Peace Durability: Replicating Krause, Krause, and Bränfors (2018)

Write a short summary of the research’s main findings and how this work has moved the field forward.

This replication points out a major flaw in original research. It is to be seen in the larger context of a replication project on research regarding the question in how far the gender of those who participate in peace processes has an impact on the success of these processes and how this research is used to influence budgetary decisions at the United Nations, in particular UN Women. Previous positive reports have praised the contribution that the shortcomings of the original work are identified and analysed well.

Major issues

• List significant concerns about the research, if there are any.

No major issues are seen after an online group discussion with the author and then three previous written reviews, including a replication of the replication, have been mostly addressed.

Minor issues

• List concerns that would improve the overall flow or clarity but are not critical to the understanding and conclusions of the research.

The larger project should be cited and this replication’s relevance explained in the context, not just mentioned. This replication constitutes a part of the preparations that resulted in a lead article in International Affairs: UN Women and women's participation in peace processes, International Affairs, 102(3), May 2026, Pages ix–xvii. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiag082

For a journal contribution, this context needs to be explained. As was pointed out in a previous review, to be admitted to review, “submissions with an overall Index of Similarity bigger than 20% or/and an individual Index of Similarity per source larger than 5% (including articles published by the same authors)” need to be avoided. This can be avoided by just focusing in the main text on the contribution of this replication, explaining the reasons why it was undertaken and summarising the results. All technical details, which unavoidably will have large overlap with the original research as the same context needs to be explained again, can be moved to an appendix.

For a contribution to a planned textbook on replication in the social sciences in which the replication is supposed to be reprinted in an extended form, the work needs to be explained hands-on in a way that helps students follow all the empirical work based on which the conclusions of the replication are drawn.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.