Reproducibility

Of course, if academic journals require greater reproducibility for publication, then the cost per paper increases.

However, the total cost has to be smaller than the cost everyone who reads the paper spends to reproduce, no?

The truth is, part of the replication crisis is also due to research groups not wanting to share their precious secrets with others, so they can keep ahead of the publication curve, or maybe spin off a startup.

And when it comes to papers, things are even crazier: big companies manage to publish white papers in peer reviewed journals.

Ciro Santilli wants to help in this area with his videos of all key physics experiments project idea.

Cool initiative. Papers that do not share source code should be banned from peer reviewed academic journals.

It is understandable that you might not be able to reproduce a paper that does a natural science experiment, given that physics is brutal.

But for papers that have either source code or data sets, academic journals must require that those be made available, or refuse to publish.

Any document without such obvious reproducibility elements is a white paper, not a proper peer reviewed paper.

Big companies like Google are able to publish white papers as peer reviewed papers just due to their reputation, e.g. without giving any source code that is central for the article.

It is insane.

E.g.: AlphaGo is closed source but published as www.nature.com/articles/natnure16961 in 2016 on Nature.