someone another 5 million to spend another 5 years doing exactly the same. I'm not arguing that replication isn't important and that we shouldn't do something about it, but I just don't see how you are going to convince the public to spend large amounts of money repeating things that have already been done. Most of the scientists I deal with personally, appear to have a strong scientific ethos. There are some that have a less idealistic motivation but I think the majority at least want to strive for the truth. It may be a function of the domain one works in of course, and, as I said, there are huge external pressures to act in non-scientific ways. Amongst the many problems with this article, I just want to pick on this one. More often, shoddy science and dodgy statistics are accepted for publication by reviewers with inadequate levels of expertise. Peer review must become more transparent. It's a complete non sequitur. The problem with dodgy statistics is that a lot to most scientists don't have statistical expertise (yes, I'm sure this varies a lot between disciplines). How does making reviews open help? Does that magically make people more competent? Is it a form of magic that makes qualified statisticians crawl out from under their rocks? Surely the way to stop dodgy statistics being published is to make sure reviewers are qualified. This means either better training for scientists, or hiring more statisticians. "Psychology" does not show that. Are you