@aeryn_thrace@mastodon.social When I argue for more reproducibility, meaningful review or more quality control in general, I get this pushback: "The individual paper is not a complete product. The overall knowledge of the field is. Science is a noisy process that time smooths. If you want quality and filtering, you have to wait." I think relying on time to such extent is inefficient, but it's hard to know how much quality control leads to the most efficient science. You seem to be arguing that we need more.