> I can't imagine anyone who truly understands the current replication failure rates thinking that a single non-replicated study is valuable for anything other than informing what replications should be attempted.
I work in biology. At a panel of biology startup founders I heard one mention that she got a lot of her research ideas from papers studying bacteria which were published nearly a hundred years ago.
In biology you first seek to extend published results. Only if the extension attempt fails would you spend effort trying to replicate it (assuming you just don't abandon the pathway entirely).
And that's why 50% of results in biology fail to replicate. I personally don't find that acceptable. Both of those options should be valued roughly equally IMO.
I work in biology. At a panel of biology startup founders I heard one mention that she got a lot of her research ideas from papers studying bacteria which were published nearly a hundred years ago.
In biology you first seek to extend published results. Only if the extension attempt fails would you spend effort trying to replicate it (assuming you just don't abandon the pathway entirely).