6.37 sigma replication of Dean Radin's double slit consciousness experiments

I think there are a number of problems involved in dissecting a paper in this way.

1)           Researches may check for a possible problem without actually stating that fact in the paper. I think it is only fair to ask the author of the experiment for his response before discussing the supposed flaw on the internet.

I'm not sure about this. Seems a little precious to me. I didn't notice that practice here  

2)           Reports of experiments supporting a ψ effect can expect to be rigorously refereed. If the referees didn't find fault, it is rather unlikely that others will.

I assume you're talking about the peer review here. As far as I can make out an OSF preprint has undergone no peer review. Under those circumstances the author should be much more grateful for any forum critiques.

3)           Ideally (in normal science) if a potential explanation for an effect is suggested, another experiment would be performed to test if the explanation was adequate to explain the effect. When discussing ψ, it all too often seems that a potential flaw - however implausible - is enough to allow sceptics to abandon the research with a sigh of relief.

I agree. This is frustrating.