{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026427061310782242, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012684989429175475, 'mean_word_length': 4.704819277108434, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Replication of Failure, Not a Failure to Replicate

Purpose: The increasing role of systematic reviews in knowledge production demands greater rigor in the literature search process. The performance of the Social Work Abstracts (SWA) database has been examined multiple times over the past three decades. The current study is a replication within this line of research. Method: Issue-level coverage was examined for the same 33 SWA core journals and the same time period as our 2009 study. Results: The mean percentage of issues missing in the current study was 20%. The mean percentage of issues missing in the current study was significantly greater than the mean percentage of issues missing in the 2009 study. Discussion: The research of other groups, and that of our own, has failed to prompt the National Association of Social Workers Press (NASW-P) to act. SWA was failing, it is failing, and NASW-P has failed to correct those failures.