The idea that "only first-class research should be published" sounds good, but I wonder whether this sort of attitude might tend to discourage researchers from replicating previous studies or publishing negative results. Those are important too.
I'm starting to think that "Only research that's been properly replicated at least twice" should be reported in the non-academic press. It would save a lot of "my experts can beat up your experts" kind of arguments about whether (e.g.) coffee is good for you or not.
And, I think, it might make science look a little better in the eye of the general public.
