1) Any research institutions that receive government funding are required to spent 10% (or 15% or 20% or whatever) of their total budget on replication. If they don't, they stop receiving any government funding.
2) When citing a paper scientists are required to include any replication studies, both successful and not successful.
This would hopefully lead to more replication studies being done, even if it doesn't answer the question of what to do with a study until it's been replicated sufficiently.
The second part would help us guess the validity of a paper. Papers that base their central premise on studies with multiple independent replication would probably be a bit more trustful than papers based on unverified studies.
1) Any research institutions that receive government funding are required to spent 10% (or 15% or 20% or whatever) of their total budget on replication. If they don't, they stop receiving any government funding.
2) When citing a paper scientists are required to include any replication studies, both successful and not successful.
This would hopefully lead to more replication studies being done, even if it doesn't answer the question of what to do with a study until it's been replicated sufficiently.
The second part would help us guess the validity of a paper. Papers that base their central premise on studies with multiple independent replication would probably be a bit more trustful than papers based on unverified studies.