Replication needs more incentive, too: considered on par with, or even more significant than, publishing any new results in a field. The incentive should come on both sides (rewards for labs that reproduce results of other labs, and rewards for scientists that publish results that are paired with clear methods).
I’m afraid that research is starting to descend into a fight for a few measly dollars, at any cost. If the results don’t really matter, you start seeing far less important measurements like “number of publications” taking precedence, which is a huge problem. At some point, if your lifeline depends on bogus metrics and all the competing labs are publishing crap that no one reads and no one can reproduce, are you forced to also publish the hell out of everything you can think of just to “compete” and stay funded? And at some point, are you spending more time publishing useless papers and writing grants begging for money, than time spent doing useful research? It’s a race to the bottom that will harm the world’s library of scientific data.
I’m afraid that research is starting to descend into a fight for a few measly dollars, at any cost. If the results don’t really matter, you start seeing far less important measurements like “number of publications” taking precedence, which is a huge problem. At some point, if your lifeline depends on bogus metrics and all the competing labs are publishing crap that no one reads and no one can reproduce, are you forced to also publish the hell out of everything you can think of just to “compete” and stay funded? And at some point, are you spending more time publishing useless papers and writing grants begging for money, than time spent doing useful research? It’s a race to the bottom that will harm the world’s library of scientific data.