People sometimes say that these data aren't meaningful because replication studies focus on papers that are unlikely to replicate. Might be true, but then the elephant in the room is "if replicators can spot which papers won't replicate, why can't editors and reviewers?"

Working on persuasion and the ELM. Is this something that practitioners actually use? It seems like there is some basic truth that people care about a message sometimes more than others, and so will think about it differently... But how much is reasonable to build around that?