Is tenure really as mechanical as "publish this many papers and you get it"? My impression was that it took into account things like impact factor and was much more subjective. If that were the case, then wouldn't you run into problems with whoever decides tenure paying lip service to counting replication or failed pre-registered papers but in practice being biased in favor of original research?
It depends on where you are. The more prestigious the university, the more that impact factors start to matter. There is also the matter of teaching and service, but I'm not talking about the entire tenure system.
