There is definitely an argument to be made for increased negative (reputational) effects. However, many unreproducable results are only discovered years, if not

There is definitely an argument to be made for increased negative (reputational) effects. However, many unreproducable results are only discovered years, if not decades, after initial publication. This makes the discovery less impactfull for the original researchers. In that timespan, many have left academia; others have more recent "shiny" publications to point to instead. It's sad, but in addition to the publish-or-perish, there's also a publish-and-forget mentality in (some) academia, in which your project is finished and you move on to the next "hot" topic. Therefore, my concern is with the efficacy of such measures. What are your thoughts on how to implement such a reputational effect? Public shaming? Should we register fraudulentprofessor.com? > Professors aren't doing any favors by rubberstamping weak papers, or giving weak students PhD's Agreed. However, I think this is a sort of tragedy of the commons, in which "good" behavior of some professors will not stop the onslaught of "bad" behavior of others. Certainly the good ones will be outnumbered in terms of graduates and since university performance reviews rely mostly on sheer numbers (students, papers..), there is an argument to be made that universities self-select for the rubber-stamp professor over the honest ones. I feel a fair solution is to re-imagine the universities' performance review system, although I have a hard time coming up with concrete and good measures of how to select the good from the bad professors.