I've been wondering lately if reproducing research could be one of the best "lines of attack" for productively moving more scientific discourse online to a open, reputation-tracking forum/repository. The big journals are likely to fight to keep a hold on their business model for new results. But a system of online Transactions of Repeated Results is not a domain they seem to really be serving now. So a small, possibly disruptive player could get some traction.
It would seem a good fit for younger scientists at less prestigious (poorer) institutions, looking to get some form of objectively validated reputation they can cite for career reasons while they work to catch up to some part of the advancing-edge of research in their field.
With enough traffic of scientists openly trying to reproduce the results in other journals (sometimes succeeding, sometimes not), it would be only a matter of time before some journals that have a bias toward "surprising" to the detriment of "true" get bitten by repeated results in the TRR that go against what they published. So long term, that would be a method by which TRR could garner some respect in fields.
It would seem a good fit for younger scientists at less prestigious (poorer) institutions, looking to get some form of objectively validated reputation they can cite for career reasons while they work to catch up to some part of the advancing-edge of research in their field.
With enough traffic of scientists openly trying to reproduce the results in other journals (sometimes succeeding, sometimes not), it would be only a matter of time before some journals that have a bias toward "surprising" to the detriment of "true" get bitten by repeated results in the TRR that go against what they published. So long term, that would be a method by which TRR could garner some respect in fields.