I only have undergrad research experience. In general, I haven't really seen focus on replicating previous results - but it depends on the work and the research

I only have undergrad research experience. In general, I haven't really seen focus on replicating previous results - but it depends on the work and the researcher. Most of what I've seen is a researchers who extend their own work. in doing so, they replicate their previous research and reveal other information. In this case, replication is definitely a goal, but it's focused on a researcher's own work and a byproduct of exploring a particular research problem. I've witnessed people discussing replications and discussing that they were unable to replicate X's results. Here, there were clear are efforts made to replicate results, but I've only witnessed this in an informal setting, so the results were never published. I've never seen a big push to publish results that discredited a result due to an inability to replicate results I suspect that there is little effort made after the fact unless the theory was particularly 'significant,' or if a researcher can offer a competing account. The one time I learned about replication was when two competing researchers were offering competing accounts and discrediting anothers' results. However, in these cases, there were flaws in each others' research Obviously, in a classroom setting, we have seen many cases were replication has occurred, which makes a particular theory very strong. It is rare that the published results are straight-replications, though. They are often extensions.