Agreed , only important studies are worth replicating, the problem is that no major journal will publish a replication. Journals in general push for novelty ra

Agreed , only important studies are worth replicating, the problem is that no major journal will publish a replication. Journals in general push for novelty rather than quality here. b) can be a problem with meta-analyses and reviews. When gathering data "from the literature" , not all the data gathered is of the same quality/certainty, which can have a compounding effect. Or when someone from a mathematical or computational field tries to create a model using data reported in the literature. It is often difficult when working in an interdisciplinary environment to assess the quality of everything you read, especially if you re not familiar with all the experimental methods. Also, off topic, but i wonder why you chose a throwaway account to weigh into this. i hope it's not a "science politics" reason.