But novelty IS what makes those journals nice and prestigious in the first place. It is the basis of their reputation.
It's basically a catch 22. We want replication in prestigious journals, but any Journal with replications becomes less novel and prestigious.
It all comes down to what people value about journals. If people valued replication more than novelty, replication journals would be the prestigious ones.
It all comes back to the fact that doing novel science is considered more prestigious than replication. Institutions can play all kinds of games to try to make it harder for readers to tell novelty apart from replication, but people will just find new ways to signal and determine the difference.
Let's say we pass a law that prestigious journals must published 50% replications. The Prestige from publishing in that journal will just shift to publishing in that journal with something like first demonstration in the title or publishing in that journal Plus having a high citation or impact value.
It is really difficult to come up with the system or institution level solution when novelty is still what individuals value.
As long as companies and universities value innovation, figure out ways to determine which scientists are innovative, and value them more
