In fairness, your last point isn’t really about confidence levels. A journal that only accepted papers written in the Bayesian methodology, but had the same publication bias, would be just as wrong.
A journal that reported likelihood ratios would at least be doing better.
A journal that actually cared about science would accept papers before the experiment had been done, with a fixed statistical methodology submitted with the paper in advance rather than data-mining the statistical significance afterward.
In fairness, your last point isn’t really about confidence levels. A journal that only accepted papers written in the Bayesian methodology, but had the same publication bias, would be just as wrong.
A journal that reported likelihood ratios would at least be doing better.
A journal that actually cared about science would accept papers before the experiment had been done, with a fixed statistical methodology submitted with the paper in advance rather than data-mining the statistical significance afterward.
Is this meant to suggest that journal editors literally don’t care about science that much, or simply that “people are crazy, the world is mad”?
Not an objection, but a lot of the articles in that journal would be “here’s my reproduction of the results I got last year and published then”.
...which is a really good thing, on reflection.