This is what follow up studies are for. To separate the wheat from the chaff. Don't separate before. See my rant below as to why I think pre-hoc decisions on analysis is a bad idea: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35883276
At the very least, I'd like to see people say in advance which parameters they are interested in. That sort of thing is fine and important to avoid un-backed p-hacking. But for researchers who come after, for their sake, if you are not publishing the entire data so that they can reanalyze it de novo, please do as much analysis as possible (and record as many parameters as possible), if only in the supplementary data.
Science can only build on previous science if the authors of that previous science allow it to happen.
At the very least, I'd like to see people say in advance which parameters they are interested in. That sort of thing is fine and important to avoid un-backed p-hacking. But for researchers who come after, for their sake, if you are not publishing the entire data so that they can reanalyze it de novo, please do as much analysis as possible (and record as many parameters as possible), if only in the supplementary data.
Science can only build on previous science if the authors of that previous science allow it to happen.