I am convinced scientific results should not be publicized, publicly promoted or broadly advertised at least a decade after publication. That's about the timescale it takes specialist communities to cross check or falsify results.
Of course, this is exactly the opposite of how science works today. There are poorly written press releases galore, and flashy but tenuous results that seldom hold up to scrutiny. There's a reason a journal like Nature is routinely mocked in scientific circles.
Why given a timeline, just say results are probably real after two independent replications, and there should significant pop science hesitation on publishing anything that hasn't been replicated yet.
Of course, this is exactly the opposite of how science works today. There are poorly written press releases galore, and flashy but tenuous results that seldom hold up to scrutiny. There's a reason a journal like Nature is routinely mocked in scientific circles.