> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?

Of course I do! Not all of course, and taking (subjectively measured) impact into account. "We tried to replicate the study published in the same journal 3 years ago using a larger sample size and failed to achieve similar results..." OR "after successfully replicating the study we can confirm the therapeutic mechanism proposed by X actually works" - these are extremely important results that are takin into account in meta studies and e.g. form the base of policies worldwide.

> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?

More than anything. That might legitimately be enough to save science on its own.

I know you got a ton of responses already but not caring about replicability just invalidates science as a method. If we care only about first to publish we end up in the current situation where we don't even know that we know is actually even remotely correct.

All because journals prefer novelty over confirmation. It's like a castle of cards, looks cool but not stable or long-term at all.

> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies? As a reader even from within the field, im not interested in browsing through negative studies.

Actually, yes, I do. The marginal cost for publishing a study online at this point is essentially nil.

Even if that negative study could save you one, two, three+ years of work for the same outcome (which you then also can't really do anything with)? Shouldn't there BE funding for replication studies? Shouldn't that count towards tenure? Part of the problem is that publications play such a heavy role in getting tenure in the first place.

I'm sure you can more narrowly tune your email alerts FFS.

"Original research" isn't worth much unless replicated, which is the entire problem being discussed in this thread. Replicating studies are great though because they tell you if the original research actually stands and is valid.

> Replicating work is far more difficult than a lot of original work.

Only if the original work was BS. And what, just because it's harder, we shouldn't do it?

If you're a reader within the field, then you are the one person in the world who should be most interested in negative replication studies.

> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?

Hell yeah. We’re all trying to get that Nature paper. Imagine if you could accomplish that by setting the record straight.

Realistically, everyone will say “yes” to the “do you want” question because if you’re not a reader or a subscriber you benefit from the readers reading replication studies.

I believe people will enthusiastically say yes but that they do not routinely read that journal.

>Also who's funding you for replication work? Do you know the pressure you have in tenure track to have a consistent thesis on what you work on?

This is partly why much of today's science is bs, pure and simple.

> Replicating work is far more difficult than a lot of original work.

I don’t regularly read scientific studies but I’ve read a few of them.

How is it possible that a serious study is harder to replicate than it is to do originally. Are papers no longer including their process? Are we at the point where they are just saying “trust me bro” for how they achieved their results?

> Do you want issues of Nature and cell to be replication studies?

Not issues of Nature but I’ve long thought that universities or the government should fund a department of “I don’t believe you” entirely focused on reproducing scientific results and seeing if they are real