[Obi_Juan_Kenobi]

Replication is far from trivial. It's still worth pursuing, but it's easy to overlook how challenging it can be to successfully execute scientific procedures.

Labs generally specialize, as there's a long learning curve to climb before you can reliably execute even 'bedrock' molecular biology protocols like immunoassays. Small ambiguities in protocol can lead to failure, and there's always simple human error involved that can tank a result. Generally you'll have positive controls available to tell you whether a protocol was successfully executed, but there are cases where that's simply not practical.

In the end, 'failure to replicate' does not necessarily mean there was anything wrong with the original work. Positively concluding that requires a lot of additional work that could explain the discrepancy.

[ssivark]

But OTOH, what even is the scientific value of the original paper if they cannot provide a clear protocol with a substantial chance of replication?

“Here, I did this magic trick, but I’m unable to tell you sufficient detail for how it works!”