Not the OP, but as a working scientist, it seems to me there are two important issues, among many others. (i) Reproducibility is not a criterion for tenure eva

Not the OP, but as a working scientist, it seems to me there are two important issues, among many others. (i) Reproducibility is not a criterion for tenure evaluation, therefore it bears little relevance for career advancement for young scientists. This is an overworked and underpaid group in academia. (In the bay area, they earn 1/3--1/2 the salary of an entry level software engineer but probably work 50% more hours.) They simply don't have the luxury to take time off to reproduce someone else's work. (ii) No major funding agency would be willing to support the kind of work that reproduces published studies. When something is published, it is considered "done" and not worth spending more money on it. There needs to be a sea change. But sadly, the academia is at best paying lip services to the structural problems in the "reproducibility crisis". I'd expect it to continue like this for most fields.