If even an author can’t replicate it, shouldn’t that make the results meaningless?
I think it is a growing, and problematic, misconception that science is about just reporting facts. It is about adding knowledge...soemtimes that is new facts, but more often it is theories, observations, and questions increasingly at the margins of randomness and probability as our species grows and learns.
How many of those non-reproducible studies showed a robust effect, in contrast to the barely there effect?
speaking openly
that kinda science seems like a bullshit factory (a very lucrative one, of course)
and analogous to an llm hallucination — shallow satisfaction of constraints by enumerating a problem space irrespective of contextual appropriateness, a liability, and forgotten as soon as real value comes along
surely the best science isn't just reproducible by scientists — engineers can get the grubby mits on it, to improve (ok, shape) the circumstances of our lives, and survival
that other stuff is busywork, not "literature". they are very different things...