It's a bit redundant now, but it's a point that deserves repetition. Replication happens by the scientists that want to build on the original work and advance i

It's a bit redundant now, but it's a point that deserves repetition. Replication happens by the scientists that want to build on the original work and advance it. Not because they simply want to replicate it, but simply to be sure that you understand the method and all the practical details that are necessary. If there is only a single paper about the result, most scientists will regard that with a certain suspicion. That doesn't mean we expect every new thing to be fake, but there are just too many ways these experiments can go wrong. One problem is certainly that the negative reproduction of experiments are more often communicated informally, and not published. If you're active in the field you will likely hear from the scientists that tried to reproduce the results without any success. But most of these are not published. Any experiment worth replicating, is usually also worth expanding and building on, and that is where the actual verification is taking place. Science works in this regard, but it doesn't work as cleanly and efficiently as one could hope for.