>>12312430>otherwise the literature would just get flooded with irreproducibile crap (even moreso than it does currently)I would say that there would be next to no difference (or possibly even less irreproducible crap) for the very simple reason that many people publishing are going to alter their own data in order to conform with what the publisher wants to see and hear most. There is a strong bias towards getting positive results, meaning people will tend to avoid publishing negative results like the plague. And one way to avoid a negative result is to torture the fuck out of the data and then tweak a few knobs here and there to get a more impressive result.
Submitting the actual honest findings will not get you published and your career will be on indefinite hold. Lots of people would certainly act outraged to find someone gave false data, but it is an open secret that it happens left and right. And the people that have built their careers on it will obviously not want these types of findings damage their OWN credibility, so they will be even more fanatical in the way they demonstrate their distaste for the people that do it: it helps their image to have people see them as this righteous advocate of the truth and it shifts eyes from them.
