Some apt remarks by law professor Holger Spamann (Harvard):

Replications aren't good for the replicator’s career. Replications take as much time as original research. But replications offer none of the rewards in terms of developing and publicizing one’s own ideas or gathering citations. It also risks upsetting the original researchers, which isn't fun unless you enjoy annoying other people (which I don't; otherwise, I could have earned a lot more money as a litigator). So why do I do it?

Because I want to stand on the shoulders of giants, not on a giant pile of manure. I can’t help it: I care about truth. That’s why I became an academic. What’s the point theorizing about a factoid that is likely just an error or randomness, intentional or not?