[return0]

I heard a well known neuroscientist suggest that studies should be required to be replicated by at least another lab before being published/ established. That may sound impractical for some fields, but especially in biology/neuroscience most projects are small enough to make this feasible. Is it worth the money? I would say absolutely, not only for the validation of the science, but for the shift in culture, to finally stop designing studies chasing minute (but statistically significant) effects just to make another publication.

I think its also about time we have post-publication peer review and about time scientists get off their high horses and start responding to it.

[argonaut]

But why would that other lab care enough to replicate? I suspect this would only exacerbate the "rich getting richer" effect whereby well-known labs/professors would have an easier time getting replicated (and thus published).