Comment by mike_hearn

Yes, that's true. In theory, by the time it gets to the replication stage a paper has already been reviewed. In practice a replication is often the first time a paper is examined adversarially. There might be a useful form of hybrid here, like paying professional skeptics to review papers. The peer review concept academia works on is a very naive setup of the sort you'd expect given the prevailing ideology ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"). Paying professionals to do it would be a good start, but only if there are consequences to a failed review, which there just aren't today.