I don’t disagree with any of these points, it’s just I’ve been involved in open science circles, where these things are always mentioned, and I just don’t see any material progress (maybe I’m not looking that closely though). I think the reason for the lack of progress is mainly funding—so until someone gets serious about funding (billionaires or taxpayers), it just seems like the same merry go around. It’s very expensive to replicate biomedical studies—but it’s the only thing that works. Maybe the tide is turning though and simply incentivizing/protecting grad students to become whistleblowers will do more good, but I fear this case was more the exception than the rule.
I think the difference is between a ground-up or top-down approach. Maybe both are needed. My current stance is that while a top-down approach would work, there's very little chance of it happening. For one, government research funds have largely flat-lined in the last 20 years, and expecting them to take on more costs for managing peer review would likely exacerbate the problem. I also don't see the govt clamoring for additional administrative burden. I don't think replication has to be the only method (although I think it's probably the best). Opening the data to the public can do a lot to suss out bad practices or outright fraud, as we saw with the Ariely situation. The progress has been slow, for sure, but I think there is some. For example, there are now journals that specialize in publishing "non-surprising" results.
