🚨 @I4Replication released my experiment with a new academic-literary form, a “replication opinion.”.I made myself judge in a debate and wrote an opinion that is more credible than either party could muster. Piece: Post: 🧵 follows.

RT @JohnArnoldFndtn: Good illustration of how much the Texas grid has changed in just 6 years. yellow = solar; purple = batteries; dark gr….

RT @RetractionWatch: Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-up citations.

RT @RetractionWatch: "How Peer Review Became Science’s Most Dangerous Illusion.".

My critical replication of a study of childhood vaccination and adult wages in India is final & effectively published.Thread: Free pub:

Whistleblower Raphaël Lévy on the systemic discouragement for calling out scientific fraud: "if a student or a more junior researcher had faced such a backlash it is unlikely that they would have been able to stand up to it."

RT @MishaTeplitskiy: Good title, good conclusion

RT @emollick: 👀Using an autonomous agent based on o3-mini and GPT-4.1, a team from Harvard, MIT & other institutions reproduced and updated….

RT @leecrawfurd: "Many global health problems are thorny and difficult. Lead, unusually, is not one of those. We already know how to reduce….

RT @open_phil: New podcast alert! Hard Drugs - a collaboration between @JacobTref at Open Phil and @salonium at @WorksInProgMag. Listen h….

RT @JustinSandefur: A million lives at risk?. @charlesjkenny and I estimate the possible toll from the aid cuts in the White House's FY26 b….

Those doing the vetting would need to be embedded in an incentive regime outside academia, one that frees them to worry more about the consequences of error. Like red teams at the CIA & DOD or GiveWell, with its great "what if we're wrong" work (.

More to the point, and more constructively, maybe research dissemination and review need to be decoupled. If we abolish peer review, the vacuum of caveat emptor would create demand for independent, credible vetting of important research.

I'm increasingly an anarchist on peer review & journals. Would we be better off without them?. The publication system creates intense pressures that distort what is published. Then, in the public eye, it certifies the results as reliable.

Update: AEJ Applied rejected my "replication opinion" on the debate they hosted. It was an odd duck. But there's still something wrong when research consumers structurally care more about truth than the producers & the former overly trust peer review & the latter play along.

Fantastic work. When I was at GiveWell, we had an "I was wrong" T-shirt you could wear when found to be wrong. It made it fun to admit error and was both a signal of and contributor to a culture of truth-seeking.

RT @alexwcohen: We wanted to verify the evidence behind >$1 billion in grants we've made to our top charities — so we asked @I4Replication….

I'm flattered. But I know Stuart, as a wise person on metascience, means this as a concrete strategy for making the world better. I agree! I'm thinking now about what I can do to promote more in-depth vetting of important studies. Peer review alone falls way short.

RT @TheReplicateNet: GUEST BLOG at TRN ("Appeal to Me – First Trial of a “Replication Opinion”) Comments. Replications. And now "Replicatio….

RT @johannarickne: 10/ Please help share our extended replication to stop the spread of this erroneous policy evaluation! . Read the new re….

Welcome @JustinSandefur! I take Granger-causal credit for this excellent hire. Justin came to @CGDev years after me, and now to @open_phil years after me. A few days ago he was even sitting at my desk.