I have the opposite problem that Candid Engineer has with "fishy results". I have long advocated the central role of replication in science. This is especially important in Epidemiology where experiments are (by their nature) rare and so one needs to do most of their inference from observational research.
But how do you make a paper that has a near perfect replication seem interesting?
I mean it's good for science but it rather deadens the discussion section to have not that all much new to add except "that association is also observed in different populations".
Notes from NEASC
2 hours ago