This seems like an extension of the replication crisis. In many fields, most published research is already bogus. The idea that peer review is enough to ensure that research is valid is perhaps not scaling well.
It would be great to have things like open data sharing. At least in astronomy, which I'm somewhat familiar with, it doesn't seem like we're that close. Most scientists cannot even reproduce their own results. It's common to use things like manual Jupyter notebooks, unlabeled CSVs, and a bunch of disorganized data files, in a one-off process that a scientist manually summarizes to produce a paper.
To me, in an ideal world each paper would sit in a GitHub repository, with an integration test that verifies the code actually produces the results used in the paper. That isn't really what academics prioritize, but perhaps things will move in this direction as more people realize that we have a replication crisis, and also as scientists tend to have more software engineering skills over time.
It would be great to have things like open data sharing. At least in astronomy, which I'm somewhat familiar with, it doesn't seem like we're that close. Most scientists cannot even reproduce their own results. It's common to use things like manual Jupyter notebooks, unlabeled CSVs, and a bunch of disorganized data files, in a one-off process that a scientist manually summarizes to produce a paper.
To me, in an ideal world each paper would sit in a GitHub repository, with an integration test that verifies the code actually produces the results used in the paper. That isn't really what academics prioritize, but perhaps things will move in this direction as more people realize that we have a replication crisis, and also as scientists tend to have more software engineering skills over time.