The replication crisis has exposed systematic methodological weaknesses across the empirical sciences, yet existing infrastructure offers little technical enforcement and few reproducible tools for assessing rigor. We propose ECLIPSE v2.0, a computational scaffold combining preregistration, cryptographically verified data splitting (SHA-256), single-shot holdout validation, integrity scoring, anomaly screening and static analysis into an auditable workflow for confirmatory testing. Three instruments are introduced, each an operational tool rather than a definitive measure: the Eclipse Integrity Score, a heuristic operationalization of protocol-level integrity across five dimensions; the Standardized Test-set Discrepancy Score, a descriptive signal flagging holdout results unusually good relative to cross-validation folds, screened against empirically derived cutoffs rather than nominal significance levels; and an Automated Code Auditor screening scripts for protocol violations. Controlled construct checks demonstrate component non-redundancy and ranking stability under the synthetic generator and weighting schemes used, but not external validity. No retrospective corpus can validly compute the score alongside replication outcomes, so we pre-specify a prospective test of incremental validity over binary preregistration and cite evidence that broad methodological-quality indicators track external-validation performance in clinical prediction models, which is indirectly relevant rather than a validation of those dimensions. ECLIPSE is offered as a scaffold, not a guarantee of compliance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Camilo Alejandro Sjöberg Tala (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: