I seriously don't understand why the scientific focus is on #replications so much rn. The problem is not that stuff doesn't replicate. That happens all the time and need not mean a study is bad (cultural reasons may be at play, esp in social sciences, design may be not well explained due to paper length requirements etc.). If you look at studies that do not work if you copy them exactly, the problem is mostly either peer review (giving a pass to bad studies due to novelty bias etc.) or - and this is arguably worse - a collective failure of the specific scientific subsystem in terms of necessary education about methods, design, causality or analysis.
I replicate stuff (at least in part) if I want to use something published as a step stone for additional work. Also I found that replicating studies is a nice exercise for students to pick apart papers and learn about design in the process. Other than that I see no real value in it. I'd much rather see more focus put on methodological and epistemic education of scientists and means to do that. Because if we don't get that done, this replication debate will - and I'm confident saying this - never ever end.