I find it kind of funny that people are <i>surprised</i> by this.<p>Reading the paper, it also feels like the authors derive entirely the wrong recommendations from this result.<p>Seems like they have identified a set of reasonable problems they encountered in trying to reproduce these studies.  Fair enough.<p>To think that the solution is just to add a lot of documentation requirements on the researcher to address those specific problems just seems totally naive.<p>This would inevitably act as a form of regulatory structure on top of all the gruff people have to go through to get results &#x27;published.&#x27; In doing so, this would also add cost and complexity to an already archaic system, and in a way that does not deal with the underlying root causes that are creating these problems.