I have recently written a paper on Plausibility. I believe that the average paper published in a rat race in which only the most surprising papers are published is not correct. When I open the average top finance journal today, half the papers present findings that just seem too good to be true.

This is not innocuous. It has a real externality in discouraging papers that document the “merely mundane.”

I have suggested repeatedly to the editors of the top journal that they dedicate 1/3 of their journals to independent replications of their previously published papers. Unless they commit to such a venture, the incentives to write such papers remain low. They should also follow the CFR critique process. (Remarkably, i now know that the most common referee drawn for a critique is usually the original author—who not surprisingly tends to feel that the critique is baseless.)