This paper examines the impact of replications published as comments in the *American Economic Review* (AER) between 2010 and 2020. The authors investigate whether these comments are cited and how they influence the citations of the original papers (OPs). They find that comments are rarely cited and do not significantly affect the citations of the OPs, even when the comments diagnose substantive problems. The study also includes an opinion survey among replicators and authors, revealing a lack of consensus on whether the OPs' contributions are sustained. The results suggest that the economics literature does not self-correct robustly, and that defining robustness and replicability in economics remains challenging. The paper contributes to the growing meta-scientific literature on transparency standards and the reception of replications in economics. It highlights the need for more robust and replicable research in the field.This paper examines the impact of replications published as comments in the *American Economic Review* (AER) between 2010 and 2020. The authors investigate whether these comments are cited and how they influence the citations of the original papers (OPs). They find that comments are rarely cited and do not significantly affect the citations of the OPs, even when the comments diagnose substantive problems. The study also includes an opinion survey among replicators and authors, revealing a lack of consensus on whether the OPs' contributions are sustained. The results suggest that the economics literature does not self-correct robustly, and that defining robustness and replicability in economics remains challenging. The paper contributes to the growing meta-scientific literature on transparency standards and the reception of replications in economics. It highlights the need for more robust and replicable research in the field.