> [...] non-scientists seem to often dramatically underestimate the amount of work it would be to replicate every published paper Either "peer reviewed" articl

> [...] non-scientists seem to often dramatically underestimate the amount of work it would be to replicate every published paper Either "peer reviewed" articles describe progress of promising results, or they don't. If they don't the research is effectively ignored (at least until someone finds it promising). So let's consider specifically output that described promising results. After "peer review" any apparently promising results prompt other groups to build on them by utilizing it as a step or building block. It can take many failed attempts by independent groups before anyone dares publish the absence of the proclaimed observations, since they may try it over multiple times thinking they must have botched it somewhere. On paper it sounds more expensive to require independent replication, but only because the costs of replication attempts are hidden until its typically rather late. Is it really more expensive if the replication attempts are in some sense mandatory? Or is it perhaps more expensive to pretend science has found a one-shot "peer reviewed" method, resulting in uncoordinated independent reproduction attempts that may go unannounced before, or even after failed replications? The pseudo-final word, end of line? What about the "in some sense mandatory" replication? Perhaps roll provable dice for each article, and in-domain sortition to randomly assign replicators. So every scientist would be spending a certain fraction of their time replicating the research of others. The types of acceptable excuses to derelict these duties should be scrutinized and controlled. But some excuses should be very valid, for example conscientious objection. If you are tasked to reproduce some of Dr. Mengele's works, you can cop out on condition that you thoroughly motivate your ethical concerns and objections. This could also bring a lot of healthy criticism to a lot of practices, which is otherwise just ignored an glossed over for fear of future career opportunities.