Solving the Research Integrity Crisis

Formal auditing strikes me as a completely unhelpful layer of bureaucracy.<p>What is needed is a culture of sharing code and data (unless that is impossible due to restrictions on the data that was used), and the tools to allow this to happen.<p>This is already happening, we just need more of the same.<p>One issue is the incentive structure in many fields means that you only get rewarded for both collecting data, and analyzing it. Therefore there is a big incentive not to share data, since you get little or no credit when someone else uses your data.

While I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of improving the "quality" of science, I think the risk is that highly subjective standard could be used as a tool to suppress newcomers. Sometimes, "old-school", cruder experiments are perfectly fine, especially if the experimenters address the possibility of complicating factors - sometimes you just can't afford to buy toys that will get you from 95% confident to 99% confident, in the eyes of reviewers, and some subfields are incredibly closed and territorial (meaning collaboration with people who do have those toys is impossible).<p>Ideally, the solution would be, ok, just get your results out there and make the materials publically available so anyone who wants to take your solution to a higher standard can do that freely, but if you are prevented from communicating your result, then it never gets even that shot.