[native_samples]

"Failure to replicate per se is not a problem, if the original study was done well and honestly"

No but in this case a common reason for failure to replicate was that the papers didn't actually include enough details to replicate them to begin with. This should be grounds for failing "original study done well" because the reason they're paid to do research in the first place, is to propagate accurate and useful knowledge. Missing critical details means the study is a failure.

[kergonath]

I see it as a systematic failure of the peer review system. Referee should be particularly careful that the article includes all information needed to replicate the results. This is often not the case, from my experience.