Sure. You can't write to everyone and there's tradeoffs to broadening your audience. But I'm also not sure what your point is. That people are arrogant? Such variety of backgrounds can also be fertile ground for collaboration. Something that should happen more often
As a gross simplification, there are two kinds of fields. Some are defined by the methods they use, and some by the topics they study.
The latter will use any methods that may yield results. That creates a problem. The people who are in the target audience for a paper and may try to replicate the results often fail to do so, because they lack the expertise. Because their background is too different.
I think you think that because we don't agree that I have some grave misunderstanding of some, to be frank, basic facts. I assure you, I perfectly understand what you're bringing up here and in the last comment.
But I think you still haven't understood my point about trade-offs. At least you aren't responding as if these exist.
Our disagreement isn't due to lack of understanding the conditions, it is due to a difference in acceptable limitations. After all, perfection doesn't exist.
So you can't just solve problems like this by bringing up limitations in an opposing viewpoint. I assure you, I was already well aware of every single one you've mentioned...
My original point was that replication attempts often fail, because the person trying to replicate the result is not an expert in the field, and they do not have enough time to devote to the effort. This is a common situation in fields that use results from other fields. If they don't have the time for proper replication, they probably don't have the time for publishing the attempt.
As for your point, I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
