[jerf]

Actually, I don't think we have to go down that rabbit hole. The current journal system is built such that a published paper is essentially a claim that this result is reproducible and statistically significant in some sense. A philosopher can and should then go and question what exactly that means in practice, whether it's the best standard, etc etc, but in the meantime, it is also acceptable to take the system's claims and observe that they do not match the reality of the journal system on its own terms, without any particular need to dig into philosophy.

In fact, I'm personally not convinced it's the best standard, but, nevertheless, it is a good start to hold journal papers to the standards they proclaim.

Worry about what the best theory is when they show some ability to implement any theory!