Science is very reproducibile by design, half the goal of peer review is to ensure that.
The problem is the incentive structure is not aligned with that and so reproduction is never done.
I would instead argue that consensus is the best bar we have to judge science. If the majority of author papers align that means either there is a conspiracy or some fraction of things was reproducibile.
The problem is the incentive structure is not aligned with that and so reproduction is never done.
I would instead argue that consensus is the best bar we have to judge science. If the majority of author papers align that means either there is a conspiracy or some fraction of things was reproducibile.