This is more of a problem if you use a weak definition of replication such as: &quot;statistically significant effect in the same direction&quot;. If instead the effect sizes need to be similar to each other (+&#x2F;- some uncertainty), then a correspondence between the multiple results means much more.<p>Of course, if people will just game this system to only publish results that fit <i>whatever</i> criteria then you will get a biased literature. Requiring a more precise range of results to qualify just makes it more difficult.<p>I don&#x27;t see how people gaming the system is a consequence of replicating each others results though. That seems like it is due to deeper cultural problems.