Why isn't it the norm to have research repeated immediately by other academics? The potential benefit to society of good research, and the potential costs of acting on bad research, seem to be extremely high in both directions.
Why is it the norm to simply peer review research, including the methodology, but not the norm to have the actual data collection and experiments re-run by other academics for cases where it is relatively low cost and fast to do so? E.g., where a second experiment/data collection run would take &lt; 20% of the cost of the original research and &lt; 3 months to conduct.
If this were standard practice on inexpensive, short term studies it could improve trust and integrity in research, so why isn't it standard practice?
Note: I tried to tag this 'academic-integrity', 'integrity', and 'statistical-significance', but no such tags exist!
Researchers make or break their reputation on ground-breaking, innovative, and high-impact work. Reproducing the results of another group provides essentially no benefit to any individual group (even if a culture of replication could arguably benefit the field).
More often than not, in my experience (in physics), reproduction of results is done as a first step in a new research project. The point of this is usually to check one's code/understanding before building up to something new. But it is not unusual for errors to be found and corrected this way. If a result is important enough to serve as a stepping stone for another research work, usually the key aspects of it are reproduced and it's not common for a visible, erroneous result to survive very long.