It seems that not being able to replicate results should, long term, make this a self-solving issue; if a particular finding can’t be replicated, it should have a winnowing effect on bad science. Any professional journal that publishes a non-replicable study should be required to repudiate that paper within a specified time frame (two years sounds about right). Something along the lines of:
‘In our April 2020 issue, we published the work of Dr. Emilio Hungaduna, et al (‘The Lachrymotic Effects Of Downward Tropism In 24 Months’ Post Neonates’). Since then, several other research teams have either refuted or failed to replicate Hungadunga’s results. To that end, this journal no longer supports the conclusions of Dr. Hungaduna’s team.’
I agree that publication bias (in all fields) is a problem. Negative results are still results.
Boru
‘In our April 2020 issue, we published the work of Dr. Emilio Hungaduna, et al (‘The Lachrymotic Effects Of Downward Tropism In 24 Months’ Post Neonates’). Since then, several other research teams have either refuted or failed to replicate Hungadunga’s results. To that end, this journal no longer supports the conclusions of Dr. Hungaduna’s team.’
I agree that publication bias (in all fields) is a problem. Negative results are still results.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
