AFAIK, no, but I could see there being cause to push citations to also cite the validations. It'd be good if standard practice turned into something like

Paper A, by bob, bill, brad. Validated by Paper B by carol, clare, charlotte.

Paper A, by bob, bill, brad. Unvalidated.

▲

gcr 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Academics typically use citation count and popularity as a rough proxy for validation. It's certainly not perfect, but it is something that people think about. Semantic Scholar in particular is doing great work in this area, making it easy to see who cites who: https://www.semanticscholar.org/

Google Scholar's PDF reader extension turns every hyperlinked citation into a popout card that shows citation counts inline in the PDF: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/google-scholar-pdf-...

	▲	rtkwe 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That is a factor most people miss when thinking about the replication crisis. For the harder physical sciences a wrong paper will fairly quickly be found because as people go to expand on the ideas/use that data and get results that don't match the model informed by paper X they're going to eventually figure out that X is wrong. There might be issues with getting incentives to write and publish that negative result but each paper where the results of a previous paper are actually used in the new paper is a form of replication.