This premise that novelty should be better-rewarded seems odd to me, because I thought a common complaint about scientific journals was overly rewarding novelty

This premise that novelty should be better-rewarded seems odd to me, because I thought a common complaint about scientific journals was overly rewarding novelty instead of robustness? Isn't that considered one of the contributing factors to the replication crisis? For example: "Novelty in science – real necessity or distracting obsession?" https://phys.org/news/2018-01-novelty-science-real-necessity-distracting.html https://phys.org/news/2018-01-novelty-science-real-necessity... "Facts Are More Important Than Novelty: Replication in the Education Sciences" https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/rbtfl/w5mrNxPVD8zSg/full https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/rbtfl/w5mrNxPVD8zSg/full In the text: "Funding bodies and academic journals that value “novelty” over replication deserve blame too." https://theconversation.com/science-is-in-a-reproducibility-crisis-how-do-we-resolve-it-16998 https://theconversation.com/science-is-in-a-reproducibility-... Etc. I haven't made it through the entire 43-page paper yet, but a quick search for "replic" and "repro" suggests they don't address this point at all.