3 ms·

I'm open to that idea but not sure how it would play out. It could go wrong in a few ways. One potential problem is that it could become "the" authority on rep

I'm open to that idea but not sure how it would play out. It could go wrong in a few ways. One potential problem is that it could become "the" authority on reproducing results. If they repro something and another scientist can't, or vice versa, would the other scientist get ignored? Another problem is that it could take away the independence of science. The government might start saying what is good science and what isn't.

lamontcg 4y ago
They can only publish their results, though, they can't force people to accept them. Any other institution, anywhere else in the world, is free to publish results which disagree. Scientists should then have the necessary tools to figure out which one is likely to be correct, and try an independent third or fourth time. It would be expected that sometimes there would be a failure to replicate which was a mistake in how it was replicated, that shouldn't be seen as being a failure of the goal of replication, and the original authors should be incentivized to reach out and discuss the issues with the methods.