That's a nice idea but there are a lot of problems with it. 1. Being able to replicate a study is necessary but not sufficient for the conclusions to be correc

That's a nice idea but there are a lot of problems with it. 1. Being able to replicate a study is necessary but not sufficient for the conclusions to be correct. Scientists pump out a lot of studies that are just doing stats on public data sets. These should be easily replicable, but the conclusions may still be nonsensical if the analysis isn't done right (and a lot aren't done right), or if the scientific work itself contains fraud or logic errors (and a lot do). 2. There are no incentives for scientists to make their work replicable. Their salary does not depend on it. Their salary isn't going to depend on it, because the scientific institutions are all basically dependent on funding by governments or rich benefactors who aren't paying attention - funding "science" is not a means to an end but the end in and of itself for these groups, and thus they aren't particularly motivated to double check the quality of what gets released. Consider the above problem: scientists were deceiving people because they thought helping Trump is the same thing as helping "racists". Scott Alexander did a very thorough analysis of this where he pointed out that Trump is not, in fact, racist and a lot of the claims that his followers are don't make any sense [1]. If self-proclaimed scientists can't do even basic sanity checks on their own beliefs like that, you can imagine how much they struggle with more complicated claims. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wo...