I am concerned that the tension between good research practice and scientific success is rising, despite recent efforts to shore up replicability (see Nature http://doi.org/bpmf; 2016).

As others have noted, high-quality research should start in the lab, by validating cell lines and reagents, for example, and end with serious, meticulous review. That rarely happens because it is time-consuming, and time is every scientist's worst enemy — particularly for young researchers who face stiff competition in the scientific job market.

To resolve this conflict, we need to work out how to change the incentive system so that it fosters a culture of good, responsible research. Reproducibility could be underpinned by a strict set of rules — including, say, systematic use of power analysis and sample-size estimation. To promote compliance and to counter any negative effect on productivity, and hence on competition for funding, labs with a record of high-quality research could be accredited with an international certificate of approval. An independent, not-for-profit organization might be responsible for awarding such certificates.