> If you want to reward excellence, you're by definition looking for the exceptional, the surprising. It might sound good, and surprising discoveries are necess

> If you want to reward excellence, you're by definition looking for the exceptional, the surprising. It might sound good, and surprising discoveries are necessary, but they're not the only thing that's good for science. I think this depends a lot on how you define 'excellence'. I agree that currently 'excellence' == novel and interesting findings, but we could interpret it to mean 'excellent science' in the broader sense, where showing that another study fails to replicate, or getting a negative result, are equally important parts of the scientific process.