>In the current system scientists allocate reproduction efforts to results that they intend to build on. So if you’ve claimed a breakthrough technique for levit

>In the current system scientists allocate reproduction efforts to results that they intend to build on. So if you’ve claimed a breakthrough technique for levitating widgets — and I think this widget technique can be used to build spacecraft (or if I think your technique is wrong) — then I will allocate precious time and resources to reproducing your work. Wouldn't this imply that worthwile results are already being replicated, so the primary cost has been paid and we just need to give some method to disseminate this work and then have it factor into the credibility of science? pre-print < peer reviewed < peer replicated, with the last step having internal rankings depending upon how much it has been replicated? And it'll also show when someone is building on things but not replicating it, which I guess is an issue in some fields more than others.