Ask HN: What are incentives for scientists to perform replication studies?

We often see headlines in print/online articles proclaiming "numerous scientific studies have shown that X causes Y". My naive question is: What are incentives for researchers to perform replication studies? It seems like the first published study gets a lot of acclaim and prestige within the research community, but it's much less prestigious to be like "oh, I saw that UC Berkeley economists did a study on dataset A, so I just used dataset B from a different country and replicated their study. I achieved similar findings"

It seems like it might be difficult for up-and-coming assistant professors to make a convincing tenure case if they simply performed replication studies (seems like originality and 'being first' are more valued for tenure), and veteran researchers probably also want to venture out to perform new breakthrough studies rather than doing replications. I'd like to learn more about the incentives that scientists have for performing replication studies; it seems like they're very important for making sure that results are robust, but I don't see any reason why an ambitious scientist would spend time doing them rather than doing his/her own original experiments. thanks!