Replications are not very scientifically useful. If there were flaws in the design of the original experiment, replicating the experiment will also replicate the flaws.
What we should aim for is confirmation: a different experiment that tests the underlying phenomenon that was the subject of the first paper.
Replications don't frequently get published but they do get attempted, because any decent researcher is going to replicate a result they rely on to build the next step. Unfortunately, you can get stuck in the mud as I did and be unable to replicate the prior findings. Is it technique or were the original results in error? We'll never know.
Building more results without replications is what caused the psychology crisis. Apparently every lab accepted the p<0.05 results or stated correlations of prior studies and just ran more studies until they got their own that was publishable. Since everyone "knew" that the prior result was true, like priming or whatever, they could conclude anything they wanted, because ex absurdum quodlibet.
Reproducibility should be a fundamental quality of published experiments.
If the published work under specifies the experiment such that it is unreproducible, that means the results can’t be reliably extrapolated because there are unstated conditions.
Well, yeah, but there are established techniques that are still very finicky. For example, staining frozen sections with fluorescent antibodies can go wrong in many ways and favors the experienced. Electron microscopy can take a lot of training to get right, and also requires careful staining techniques to get meaningful results. RNA work (e.g. FISH) is very sensitive to the presence of RNase which is ubiquitous and difficult to exclude from preparations. So a procedure can be specified that is reproducible but getting the same conditions is more difficult than, say, using Nix.
What we should aim for is confirmation: a different experiment that tests the underlying phenomenon that was the subject of the first paper.