Time for a scientific journal Reproducibility Index | Retraction Watch

"Retraction Watch readers are by now more than likely familiar with the growing concerns over reproducibility in science. In response to issues in fields from cancer research to psychology, scientists have come up with programs such as the Reproducibility Initiative and the Open Science Framework. These sorts of efforts are important experiments in ensuring that findings are robust. We think there’s another potential way to encourage reproducibility: Giving journals an incentive to publish results that hold up. As we write in our latest LabTimes column, we have already called for a Transparency Index to supplement the standard 'Impact Factor' – a gauge of how often papers are cited by other papers, which journals use to create a hierarchy of prestige ... The idea is to encourage 'slow science' and careful peer review, whilst discouraging journals from publishing papers based on flimsy results that are likely to be heavily cited. Like the Transparency Index, the Reproducibility Index could supplement the impact factor. In fact, one way to judge average reproducibility would be to calculate what percentage of citations for a given paper shows replication versus inability to reproduce results...."