[theptip]

> As for why non-replicable results are cited more, I'd speculate that non-replicable results are often more unintuitive and surprising

This seems the likely explanation; I saw a paper recently that showed that lay people can predict what will replicate with above-chance accuracy[1]. I imagine scientists are even better than lay people at this.

So non-replicable results are almost by definition surprising (i.e. they are hypotheses that don't match our current model of how the world works), and surprising results are definitely better news than unsurprising results.

[1](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459209196...)