> But talking to researchers, they see publishing more like making a new branch in a repository. Well some do, others don't. Like the one who wrote the article

> But talking to researchers, they see publishing more like making a new branch in a repository. Well some do, others don't. Like the one who wrote the article this is a discussion of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis > Replication is one of the central issues in any empirical science. To confirm results or hypotheses by a repetition procedure is at the basis of any scientific conception. A replication experiment to demonstrate that the same findings can be obtained in any other place by any other researcher is conceived as an operationalization of objectivity. It is the proof that the experiment reflects knowledge that can be separated from the specific circumstances (such as time, place, or persons) under which it was gained. Or, in short, "one is none". One might turn into more than one, it might not. Until it does, it's not real. more snippets from the above WP article: > This experiment was part of a series of three studies that had been widely cited throughout the years, was regularly taught in university courses > what the community found particularly upsetting was that many of the flawed procedures and statistical tools used in Bem’s studies were part of common research practice in psychology. > alarmingly low replication rates (11-20%) of landmark findings in preclinical oncological research > A 2019 study in Scientific Data estimated with 95% confidence that of 1,989 articles on water resources and management published in 2017, study results might be reproduced for only 0.6% to 6.8%, even if each of these articles were to provide sufficient information that allowed for replication I'm not saying it couldn't be fine to just publish things because they "could be interesting". But the overall situation seems like quite the dumpster fire to me. As does software, FWIW.