>The problem is that replication studies aren't done hard enough. >And by replication studies I mean "take this paper, try to replicate, write a paper on it".

>The problem is that replication studies aren't done hard enough. >And by replication studies I mean "take this paper, try to replicate, write a paper on it". You don't necessarily need to perform a straight-up "replication study" in order to do some useful sanity checking on published results. It can be done as part of another novel study that builds upon prior work. That's basically what happened with the fraudulent UCLA political persuasion study several years ago [1]. Some Berkeley researchers wanted to extend the ideas in that earlier published paper, reused similar methods under the assumption that the UCLA folks were correct, and couldn't get anything reasonable within the ballpark of what was published. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-two-grad-students-uncovered-michael-lacour-fraud-and-a-way-to-change-opinions-on-transgender-rights/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-two-grad-students-u...