This article from Discover highlights a self-replication by leading researchers investigating the relationship between oxytocin and trust. These researchers reported not being able to replicate their own, previously published study. Click here to read the article. While the subject itself may interest some, the article leaves unaddressed a very interesting question. SHOULD JOURNALS ALLOW RESEARCHERS TO PUBLISH WORK REFUTING THEIR EARLIER RESEARCH? There are some potentially perverse incentives in play here. But perhaps reputational effects would keep these in check? Some journals, such as Public Finance Review, require the replicating author to be independent of the original author (see Guideline #3 here). However, that may be a necessary requirement given PFR’s policy of publishing both positive and negative confirmations. Does that mean that journals should only publish self-replications if the researchers fail to replicate their original study? Food for thought.