Someone sent me this post & blog post from @deevybee who is not very enthusiastic about this new #eLife "replication" category:
mastodon.social/@deevybee/1154…

I have to say I'm not really convinced by these arguments. I think it's OK for the eLife editors to have some say in which papers get published, and if there is a specific "Replication Attempt" category, they should be more likely to send the paper for review regardless of the replication outcome.

I heard from people who did registered reports and it was apparently a giant additional effort with added time and resources needed to do it on top of what you'd do for a normal publication. I don't know if they'll do it again. So I understand why researchers are "resistant" to it even if, on paper, it seems like the right thing to do.

I also think it's OK to request that the authors at least try to communicate with the authors of the original study (when possible) before / during the replication attempt. It would seem a bit sneaky otherwise and it will probably help being more efficient with the replication. I'm sure that eLife will not prevent publication if the original authors do not want to communicate as long as the attempts are documented in the cover letter.

So, I think it's definitely a step in the right direction!