4 ms·

If I was rich I'd start a journal solely dedicated to publishing papers trying to recreate other papers.

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• 317070 2y ago
  Wait, you don't need to be rich. With pay-to-publish (also known as free access), it is an absolute goldmine. People generally don't want to do the work of editing and publishing, or lack the academic knowhow to do it. But if that is not an issue, I don't think money will be an issue either.
  • caddemon 2y ago
    There isn't enough incentive currently to publish reproductions, starting a new journal using the same general publishing model isn't going to change that. But with money to burn you could add some incentive, or you could at least do things to improve publication quality like actually paying for good peer reviewers.
• burkaman 2y ago
  Here's one effort, unfortunately it looks like it never got off the ground: http://rescience.org/x http://rescience.org/x. Here's their motivation in a Nature letter to the editor: https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020-01328-2/d41586-020-01328-2.pdf https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-020...
  • nextos 2y ago
    As I said in another comment, I think it'd be much easier to convince Nature to create a new article type, Replication Study. Nature, as well as other top journals, do not publish results that report already published findings. Replication Studies would be the exception. These would provide independent validation of a recent prominent article. People would think twice before misrepresenting findings in top journals, and good ideas would spread out more quickly.