Register the experimental design before hand and a commitment to publish non-results. That’s the logistical piece. The harder one is the incentive structure in academia that focuses on publishing new/novel research. There should be similar rewards for doing good replication work on significantly important results (eg if everyone based their research on a study that hasn’t been replicated which happens with alarming regularity in the social sciences and psychology). High energy particle physics has this problem now too to some extent and they’re tackling it in other ways (you only have one LHC for example)
This should be possible. I think it is important for scientists to do both novel and replication studies.
One way to improve on the status quo would be to make students do both types of work (the point of a PhD is to demonstrate that you can do research, by doing it. So why not do both kinds). This actually could fit in nicely in the program: first/second years tend to be inexperienced anyway, so they could start by doing some replication work. Halfway through the degree, they switch to novel work.