Given that some experiments cost billions to conduct, it is impossible to implement "Peer Replication" for all papers.
What could be done is to add metadata about papers that were replicated.
At least that's my understanding
In theory editors (or rather copyeditors, the editors themselves have to handle too many papers to do this sort of thing) should help with things like style, grammar, and spelling. In practice, quality varies but it is often subpar.
I don't know how refereed conference proceedings work (we don't really use these). The only journals I know of that have professional editors (i.e., editors who are not active researchers themselves) are Nature and affiiliated journals, but someone more knowledgeble should correct me here.
Also, most work goes to conferences; journals typically publish longer versions of published works.
Yes, who do you think ask the reviewers to perform their reviews?
> peer review is more for checking if the methodology, scope, claim, direction, conclusion and relevances is sound&trustable.
No, the parent comment has it right. The only thing being reviewed is the paper, and the point is to make sure it communicates clearly, not that it’s “sound and trustable.”
If someone wants to spend some time replicating something that’s only been described in a paper or two, that is valuable work for the community and should be encouraged. If the person is a PhD student using that as an opportunity to hone their skills, it’s even better. It’s not glamorous, it’s not something entirely new, but it is useful and important. And this work needs to go to normal journals, otherwise there’s just be journals dedicated to replication and their impact factor will be terrible and nobody will care.
It's basically a catch 22. We want replication in prestigious journals, but any Journal with replications becomes less novel and prestigious.
It all comes down to what people value about journals. If people valued replication more than novelty, replication journals would be the prestigious ones.
It all comes back to the fact that doing novel science is considered more prestigious than replication. Institutions can play all kinds of games to try to make it harder for readers to tell novelty apart from replication, but people will just find new ways to signal and determine the difference.
Let's say we pass a law that prestigious journals must published 50% replications. The Prestige from publishing in that journal will just shift to publishing in that journal with something like first demonstration in the title or publishing in that journal Plus having a high citation or impact value.
It is really difficult to come up with the system or institution level solution when novelty is still what individuals value.
As long as companies and universities value innovation, figure out ways to determine which scientists are innovative, and value them more
There always seems to be a contingent of people that think that anything less than %100 solution is inadequate so nothing is done. Peer review has proven itself inadequate and people hang on to it tooth and nail. Some disciplines should require replication on everything - I won't name Psychology or Social Sciences in general but the failure to replicate rate for some is unacceptable.
I have had a paper rejected twice in a row over the last year. Both times the comments include something like "paper was very well-wriiten; well-written enough that an undergrad could read it".
Peer review ensures the gates are kept.
If you can't replicate them it's like they didn't happen anyways
But yeah, in the grand scheme of things if it hasn’t been replicated, then it hasn’t been proven, but some works are credible on their own.