This is more of a problem if you use a weak definition of replication such as: "statistically significant effect in the same direction". If instead the effect s

This is more of a problem if you use a weak definition of replication such as: "statistically significant effect in the same direction". If instead the effect sizes need to be similar to each other (+/- some uncertainty), then a correspondence between the multiple results means much more. Of course, if people will just game this system to only publish results that fit whatever criteria then you will get a biased literature. Requiring a more precise range of results to qualify just makes it more difficult. I don't see how people gaming the system is a consequence of replicating each others results though. That seems like it is due to deeper cultural problems.