Not really.

"It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so."

Knowing that something I thought was true was actually false would have saved me years in several situations.

I didn't understand us to only be talking about failed replication studies of previous Nature papers which would hopefully be few and far between and thus noteworthy indeed. Rather replication studies in general which on average are arguably less interesting to the reader than even the content of the typical archival journal.

▲

MarkusQ 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They certainly will be few and far between when the system is structured to repress them. But there's reason to believe they wouldn't be as rare as you seem to think:

https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=retraction

	▲	fc417fc802 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Are you seriously attempting to imply that Nature retractions aren't few and far between? What's even your point here? Hopefully we are at least in agreement that Nature is seen as prestigious and worth looking through precisely because of the sort of content that they publish. Diluting that would dilute their very nature. (Bad pun very much intended sorry I just couldn't resist.)