This raises the question: Should scientific journals adjust the p-value that they require from an experiment, to be no larger than the probability (found empirically) that a peer-reviewed article contains a factual, logical, methodological, experimental, or typographical error?
The meta-science part would change with time, e.g. how many people read the article and found no mistakes. Doesn’t seem to mix well with a fixed result.
Maybe some separate, online thing that just reported on the probability of claims could handle the meta-science.
This raises the question: Should scientific journals adjust the p-value that they require from an experiment, to be no larger than the probability (found empirically) that a peer-reviewed article contains a factual, logical, methodological, experimental, or typographical error?
The meta-science part would change with time, e.g. how many people read the article and found no mistakes. Doesn’t seem to mix well with a fixed result.
Maybe some separate, online thing that just reported on the probability of claims could handle the meta-science.