For studies in sensitive domains (e.g., DEI, education, health) that quickly influence policy, require a registered replication report with adversarial collaboration before agencies act on the findings. Locking methods in advance and involving skeptics reduces p‑hacking, journal bias, and premature institutional uptake.
— Making adversarial replications a gatekeeper would curb ideology‑driven science from steering hiring, funding, and regulation on the basis of fragile results.
2025.10.07
66% relevant
Rootclaim’s $100,000 lab‑leak debate formalizes adversarial, pre‑specified evidence evaluation before drawing conclusions, paralleling the call for adversarial replications to vet claims in sensitive domains prior to policy uptake.
Ethan Mollick
2025.09.29
72% relevant
Mollick reports Claude Sonnet 4.5 read a paper, ingested its replication archive, converted STATA to Python, and reproduced results that another model (GPT‑5 Pro) re‑replicated—evidence that AI can drastically lower the cost/time of pre‑policy replication audits the idea calls for.
Lee Jussim
2025.08.26
75% relevant
Nature’s reviewers allegedly used 'awareness contamination' to reject a replication proposal, underscoring the need for pre‑registered, adversarial replications before influential studies shape policy and norms.
Michael Inzlicht
2025.07.08
78% relevant
Inzlicht uses the collapses of stereotype threat and ego depletion to argue against hasty theorizing and interventions, aligning with the call to require robust replications before policy or institutional uptake; he specifically criticizes journals for demanding theory advancement in every paper.
Lee Jussim
2025.06.27
100% relevant
Jussim reports a registered replication report, run as an adversarial collaboration, that reverses the 2012 Moss‑Racusin faculty‑bias finding used by the White House and APA.