I don't think that is the answer either. We would just get a lot of replications of boring results. And replications of those replications.
But it's not easily remediable. And that is the point.
Just imagine how that would work in practice. Somebody does an original experiment that gives exciting results. Let's say they get a 1000 Science Points for that. Now somebody replicates that experiment. How many points should they get? Should you get as many points for replicating a 1000 points experiment as replicating a 500 points experiment? Why would you do original experiments at all anymore? Isn't it easier just to replicate original experiments where all of the hard work has already been done?
Awarding points for replication is a nonsense idea.
If someone replicates it after this process and finds different results, it's "new research" again and needs to be replicated again.
I think we shouldn't even accept papers that haven't been replicated twice by independent teams.
Honest researchers doing original research to the best of their abilities. That's how you get good results, and what drives progress. The rest is just bureaucracy. The need for replication will be just another bureaucratic add-on to catch dishonest researchers, and researchers who value prestige more than the truth.
I don't.