Good, point. I was once an experimental physicist and never psychologist. In physics there is a lot of trial and error before you can get the experiment to do

Good, point. I was once an experimental physicist and never psychologist. In physics there is a lot of trial and error before you can get the experiment to do anything at all. Anyone who reads your paper needs fewer trials. So I was going to agree with you that in fields where experiments work differently, reproduction can cost as much as the original study. But on second thought, that's wrong: and indeed it is the whole point of the thread. There is always trial-and-error. You simply don't know if your theory is correct. And there is always risk of a methodolical weakness that you only understand after seeing the data. The trouble is after you have already spent all your time and grant money on your study, you have every incentive to paper over these issues. Indeed even if you are scrupulously honest, you will have to shove study in the proverbial file drawer - because you don't have the resources to try another iteration. So I think it's still true that a new experiment costs more than reproduction, and many of the problems with studies arise from trying to pretend that cost doesn't exist.