Across 4,452 published replication packages for five economics journals, the workflow flags discrepancies in 3,460 articles or their appendices.
If this result can be confirmed, and the methodology can be applied to other disciplines, this could really shake up the world of academic publishing. Serious discrepancies can hopefully be flagged and addressed before publication. It may also allow authors take a harder look at earlier papers they're citing.
I would hope that it will also reduce the numbers of subpar papers and fraudulent research submitted for review, but as we've seen throughout history the cheaters always find a way to get ahead.
ilamont•59m ago
If this result can be confirmed, and the methodology can be applied to other disciplines, this could really shake up the world of academic publishing. Serious discrepancies can hopefully be flagged and addressed before publication. It may also allow authors take a harder look at earlier papers they're citing.
I would hope that it will also reduce the numbers of subpar papers and fraudulent research submitted for review, but as we've seen throughout history the cheaters always find a way to get ahead.