Replication is an essential part of any science, confirming or adjusting our understanding of the world through repeated exploration of a phenomenon of interest. While there has been an increased interest in the role of replication studies, there also exists skepticism regarding the need for more replication. Our empirical analysis of 470 recent studies that use the term ‘replication’ suggests that this criticism stems from a lack of appreciation of the different forms that replication can take, the prevalence (or lack thereof) of many of these forms, and the objectives that are met by one of the least common forms, constructive replication. As such, the purposes of our paper are 1) to explore the different forms that constructive replication can take and the objectives at which each can be directed, 2) to distinguish these forms from other forms of replication with which they are often confused, 3) to determine how common each form of replication is in our field, and 4) to provide concrete examples of different forms of constructiveness from published studies in order to pave the way towards more (and more useful) replications in the future.