Dumb outsider question: why not just mark studies that have been reproduced versus ones that still have not been reproduced?
The way I view it is two steps of publication: the cutting-edge (not reproduced yet) versus independently reproduced.
The way I view it is two steps of publication: the cutting-edge (not reproduced yet) versus independently reproduced.
If something is not reproduced, and submitted by a lab with a low score, people would take it less seriously.