> That's pre-publication peer-replication, and my comment was only meant to be interpreted in that light. Sorry I might have gone mixed up between threads. Ye

> That's pre-publication peer-replication, and my comment was only meant to be interpreted in that light. Sorry I might have gone mixed up between threads. Yeah, pre-publication replication is nice (I do it when I can and am suspicious of some simulation results), but is not practical at scale. Besides, the role of peer review is not to ensure results are right, that is just not sustainable for referees.