3 ms·

> Who cares if the metaphorical wood rots next winter, the paper's been published. Isn't this why the replication crisis was able to be kept hidden for so long

• Beldin 3y ago
  Not as far as I know. Much more problematic was the fact that replication is very hard to publish. That's because either you more or less confirm previous findings and therefore contribute little to the scientific record (or so reviewers seem to think), or your findings counter the original results and now it's on you to explain the discrepancy. Even if you satisfy the reviewers that you're right, they may not consider your result of sufficient caliber to accept for publication in this particular venue [1]. [1] I've seen this happen to a paper that proved that a theoretical framework for constructing proofs about RFID protocols was neither sound nor complete.