> You know, the whole publication + review + reproduction thing really helped science become a more solid process, but we need something more elaborate now.

No, we don’t. Increasing demands for rigour in pre-publication peer review are why publication times from submission sociology and economics reach and exceed two years and why papers which start off thirty pages long end up with eighty, after adding robustness checks and citing every tangentially relevant paper in the literature. We know that post publication peer review works perfectly well because it was the norm until after WWII with the rise of state funding of big science and the accompanying ass covering and form filling proceduralism that made it popular.

As always only replication counts, whether that’s checking that an experiment has the results claimed or that an argument follows from its premises.

We certainly don’t need to lean on reputation more. Science isn’t law; arguments from authority aren’t valid.