My point is that we can, apparently, improve the baseline expectations in the parts of science where this kind of reproducibility is possible. That isn't all science, granted, but it is some science. It isn't a panacea, granted, but it could guard against some forms of misconduct or honest error some of the time. The self-correcting part of science only works when there's something for it to work on, so open data and runnable code ought to improve that self-correction mechanism.
But my point is this linked-to essay appears not only to exclude some areas of good science, but to suggest that any topics which cannot be replicated before publication is only worthy of publication in the Journal of Irreproducible Results.
I gave examples to highlight why I disagree with author's opinion.
Please do not interpret this to mean I do not think improvement is possible.
