I find it kind of funny that people are surprised by this. Reading the paper, it also feels like the authors derive entirely the wrong recommendations from thi

I find it kind of funny that people are surprised by this. Reading the paper, it also feels like the authors derive entirely the wrong recommendations from this result. Seems like they have identified a set of reasonable problems they encountered in trying to reproduce these studies. Fair enough. To think that the solution is just to add a lot of documentation requirements on the researcher to address those specific problems just seems totally naive. This would inevitably act as a form of regulatory structure on top of all the gruff people have to go through to get results 'published.' In doing so, this would also add cost and complexity to an already archaic system, and in a way that does not deal with the underlying root causes that are creating these problems.