[dual_basis]

But there is zero reward for showing replication results. Not novel enough, you won't get published. And if you're unable to replicate it then maybe you just did it wrong, or there was a small trick they were using in the code which they left out of the paper, etc.

[dr_zoidberg]

The answer is evident: replication has to become (once again) relevant.

[dual_basis]

Of course, agreed!

How?

[dr_zoidberg]

Having replication studies/papers be on par with "innovation" studies/papers on academic conferences and journals. Or maybe not on par, but considering them as something worthy of publication.