No paper should ever be referenced until it has been replicated by an independent group. The replication crisis in science is real, and it won't take long for no one to believe anything anymore.

▲

Polizeiposaune 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That rule would make it difficult to report on a failure to replicate a published paper.

▲

hirvi74 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Does some sort of batched style of research already exist? By batched, I mean a study where n number of teams all agree on a single methodology, and then conduct the same experiment simultaneously. Each team could then publish their results independently and the teams could publish one aggregate.

I know meta studies attempt to do this in a way, but they can sometimes have their own problems too.

I cannot recall coming across this style of research in much of what I have read as a hobby, but maybe it is more common in some domains than others? I am not smart, and there is nothing new under the Sun, so surely something like this exists, no?

▲

freediddy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every paper needs to include an independent replication of the study.

	▲	monocasa an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If only we had that level of science funding.

▲

alansaber 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

In the physical sciences, any sufficiently important paper is independently verified. Sounds like cost/effort of these multi year studies is not faesible to replicate, but then again, I know nothing about social science so w/e