Andy King's attempt to replicate a highly cited sustainability study revealed fundamental flaws, including misreported statistical significance and impossible matching rates. The paper, cited over 6,000 times, has been referenced by top executives and officials. King's investigation exposed a broken peer-review system where authors ignore replicators and journals reject corrections.

When King contacted the authors of the 2014 Management Science paper, he received no response. The journal rejected his comment, citing 'tone' issues. Only after public pressure on LinkedIn did the journal publish a correction for a 'typo' the authors admitted. This highlights a culture where criticizing published work is often career-damaging.

The real issue was a methodological impossibility: the study claimed a 98% match rate for sustainability pairs, but King's analysis showed a <15% rate. Research integrity offices at Harvard and London Business School were contacted but took no action. King's eventual replication was published in the Journal of Management Scientific Reports, an upstart journal for replication studies.