> With the new rules, would there have to be another study stating the new objective?
I think it's only fair to force you to replicate at least once the positive result you think you see in the data you collected for another purpose before you can claim you got something.
Yes, the linked article is saying that researchers used to employ techniques like 'p-hacking' (among others) in order to report results that were favorable/novel. That the scientists and clinicians in charge teased the data too much.
I think it's only fair to force you to replicate at least once the positive result you think you see in the data you collected for another purpose before you can claim you got something.