A solution to this could be to integrate replication studies in the evaluation process of scientific papers, e.g., as we suggest in our #PeerReplication model: doi.org/10.1038/s443..., and to be very careful when building on scientific discoveries that havn't yet been replicated independently!
We are now seeking funding for a #PeerReplication pilot and journals willing to participate.
If you are an editor or research foundation interested in helping us moving this forward, please reach out!
Finally, I would like to thank @berndpulverer.bsky.social and Holger Breithaupt from @embopress.org for their editorial review of our manuscript and for supporting our #PeerReplication model by publishing our white paper!
#ScientificPublishing is flawed with most published research unlikely to be #Reproducible.
To address this, we propose #PeerReplication as an alternative or augmentation to #PeerReview, where key experiments are reproduced, adding robustness to published findings: doi.org/10.1038/s44319-026-00705-8
This work originated on Twitter, where Anders and I discovered that we independently had the same idea to fix scientific publishing when we used the same hashtag: #PeerReplication
That inspired us to write down the idea. Now we're seeking feedback to strengthen the concept.
