That's it exactly! Thanks much. (It's a little disappointing how close my article comes to his, even stylistically. This was completely unintentional; I hadn't read his since it was published.)

Re: journals, I've edited it to also mention reproductions (which are accepted much less frequently). I should have mentioned reproductions in the first place, although what I was thinking of was more failures to reproduce results (as in the parapsychology example).