> Saying that it might be caused by anything is a low effort dismissal. I am dismissing it as: One paper = interesting hypothesis Multiple replicated papers

> Saying that it might be caused by anything is a low effort dismissal. I am dismissing it as: One paper = interesting hypothesis Multiple replicated papers = theory Multiple replicated papers, with substantially different methodologies = scientific fact > Yes I have, on both sides. Maybe it differs by field, but I (and my fellow PhD students) took it serious enough that we rarely read and finished writing a peer review within a single day. (This was mostly on economic theory / methodology papers, where even understanding the paper can take multiple days.) Interesting. I've worked in several fields, and if this is the case, economics is pretty special. Good on you! It wasn't always this way. As an economist, you study incentives. Think about how to prevent your field from sliding the way others did. Right now, academic incentive structures dictate cursory skim, and cultures+behaviors tend to (often after many years) align to incentives. As someone in a field (apparently) further along that path than economics, all I can suggest is to act sooner rather than later. It's easier to preserve cultures of integrity than to fix cultures of the opposite.