Perhaps we are looking for the wrong measure of success. This is not inclined plane ball rolling in fifth period Physics with Mr. Johannes. Reproducibility in cutting edge experiment is success. It means that what is being measured - even if the wrong thing - is within the control of the experimenter.
It is absurd, but practical, to publish experimental results with the implication that they are reproducible based on a peer review of the results. "Well they look reproducible to me," when uttered by a peer reviewer is the current standard. All we are seeing is that the a priori reasoning of experts is not a substitute for empirical investigation of scientific claims.
Let us not forget that a journal which finds no worthy articles this quarter has only two options, publish unworthy ones or publish no articles. I know how I react when a magazine subscription does not come.
I wonder if it would be possible to produce a journal that only released an issue when it has, say, 10 articles? No monthly/quarterly schedule, you could have an issue release next week, or next year.
As a digital document it is easy. Because printing requires substantial coordination, it is less practical. The subscription model common to the scientific journal industry makes it contractually problematic.
I wonder what portion of academic research is equivalent to content farming.
It is absurd, but practical, to publish experimental results with the implication that they are reproducible based on a peer review of the results. "Well they look reproducible to me," when uttered by a peer reviewer is the current standard. All we are seeing is that the a priori reasoning of experts is not a substitute for empirical investigation of scientific claims.
Let us not forget that a journal which finds no worthy articles this quarter has only two options, publish unworthy ones or publish no articles. I know how I react when a magazine subscription does not come.