> Maybe the incentive structure of academia is the actual problem it's fairly clear that it is the case. You are rewarded with tenure for pushing lots of paper

> Maybe the incentive structure of academia is the actual problem it's fairly clear that it is the case. You are rewarded with tenure for pushing lots of papers, regardless of their validity, since nobody actually cares about replicating anything. > peer review system is an imperfect, but perhaps effective The peer review system is just about checking points of details or calculation in a study, they never bother to actually check if the original results are valid. It's a mostly useless process that does nothing but remove the most obvious problems in the writing stage. > the alternative just like we did for hundreds of years now, proper replication baked in, by different people in different places, following the exact same conditions or protocol.