> What's the value in publishing something that is never replicated?
Because it presents an experimental result to other scientists that they may consider worth trying to replicate?
Because it presents an experimental result to other scientists that they may consider worth trying to replicate?
Lots of "replicated" "peer-reviewed" research have been found to be wrong. That's fine, it's part of the process of discovery.
A paper should be taken for what it is: a piece of scientific work, a part of a puzzle.