"If negative results are published like other information, people could have a incentive to replicate post fraudulent failures"? Um sounds worse, (OT:) to add

"If negative results are published like other information, people could have a incentive to replicate post fraudulent failures"? Um sounds worse, (OT:) to add something a simpified (strict stripped) example -hope practicable: You work at a company. Orders are comming in, wares are placed as 'reserved' till paid, than shipped. With a worker perspective, you check the emails with orders ('the customer whishes'), sending 'bills' and the wares if, or if not been paid - 'you've been paid'. Viewed by the company-manager your position may a) be valid oder come b) 'overvalued' (...) Stucked in this example, you talked to other 'employeees' during break and 'there was a time meeting on weekends', so you talked about work and there was a (special) kind of 'more transparency' than without peer review. ^^ Regards, hope this helps... (-: