Replications are an integral part of cumulative experimental science. Yet many scientific disciplines do not replicate much because novel confirmatory findings are valued over direct replications. To provide a systematic assessment of the replication landscape in experimental linguistics, the present study estimated replication rates for over 50,000 articles across 98 journals. We used automatic string matching using the Web of Science combined with in-depth manual inspections of 274 papers. The median rate of mentioning the search string “replicat*” was as low as 1.7%. Subsequent manual analyses of articles containing the search string revealed that only 4% of these contained a direct replication, i.e., a study that aims to arrive at the same scientific conclusions as an initial study by using exactly the same methodology. Less than half of these direct replications were performed by independent researchers. Thus our data suggest that only 1 in 1250 experimental linguistic articles contains an independent direct replication. We conclude that, similar to neighboring disciplines, experimental linguistics replicates very little, a state of affairs that should be reflected upon.