> The best way forward is probably some metric of reproducibility. Can your paper/experiment be reproduced? Has anyone done so? Did they succeed or fail? Did they publish their results? That would quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.
I wish it was more common to cite a paper and the first few attempts at reproducing it side by side.
It would reward the reproducibility study with a lot of citations and reinforce the credibility of the cited original paper, because the reader now knows that the results quoted have been certified elsewhere.
Sure it can be gamed, but if you see $shady_institution and the reproducibility study was made by $other_shady_institution you can still draw your own conclusions...
I wish it was more common to cite a paper and the first few attempts at reproducing it side by side.
It would reward the reproducibility study with a lot of citations and reinforce the credibility of the cited original paper, because the reader now knows that the results quoted have been certified elsewhere.
Sure it can be gamed, but if you see $shady_institution and the reproducibility study was made by $other_shady_institution you can still draw your own conclusions...