This paper discusses repeated tests and the resultant reporting of statistical significance when it is actually not present. These errors interact with professional norms such as biases against both replication studies and ‘non-results’ to undermine the efficacy of our base of empirically tested theory. This raises serious issues for the future of strategic management research. Suggestions are made for dealing with these issues substantively and in terms of professional norms. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.