The need for more replication studies in psychology has been in the air for a few years now, particularly since Kahneman's priming letter. The publishing incentives in academia encourage novelty and finding new effects - driving forward at all times rather than squinting back at old papers and asking, say, whether doing a crossword can really make you walk more slowly down a hallway. As such not many individual researchers are willing to sink a few weeks or months into replicating a major paper - after all, either they will replicate the effect and won't particularly bolster their reputation or they won't find the effect and will then receive whatever plaudits are going for getting a null result (spoiler: there aren't any). There's no individual incentive to run replications*, but it's tremendously important for science in general to kick the tires of notable research papers to establish how sturdy they really are. In that sense it's a classictragedy of the commons situation where the incentives of the individual and the group are pulling in different directions.