[lemursage]

I think the problem here is that articles and publications in general do not provide enough detail to reproduce the results. Even though, that is the exact reason you write an article -- to make research reproducible. Peer-reviewed journals should, and they progressively try to be more strict about it, enforce the necessary level of detail and open-sourcing of methods.

Reproduction in science is a though problem -- not only it requires specialist lab equipment, methods or procedures, but sometimes "a trick" is needed. Inconveniently, it may not be mentioned in the publication for whatever reason. Therefore, giving an unexperienced PhD a task of reproducing somebody's work may end up to be a futile effort. But the idea is neat in general, I think.

[utucuro]

Today, I'd say reproduction of results is far more important than getting more research published.

I would even go so far as to say that peer review is worthless, it may well be time to replace it with peer reproduction as a prerequisite for having an article published.