> Much better to make reproducibility a valuable research contribution in and of its own and let "the market" take care of it. "the market" is the same force t

> Much better to make reproducibility a valuable research contribution in and of its own and let "the market" take care of it. "the market" is the same force that has led to the perverse incentives of constantly pushing new "discoveries" above validations. The small variations you have prescribed have been tried (to various degrees) and have not had an effect on aggregate behavior. > Why make it a PhD requirement? You'd end up with half-assed attempts to reproduce easy results and little mafia rings of my-reproduction-for-your-reproduction. The why is obvious. The purpose of a PHD is for the furthering of knowledge, so it's a perpetual source of motivation. > You'd end up with half-assed attempts to reproduce easy results and little mafia rings of my-reproduction-for-your-reproduction. That's how it might end up (largely based on the rigor of the PHD program), but it's better than what we have, which is no good incentive to reproduce results.