Universities, institutions and publications who care about their reputation should pay people to replicate studies performed by people they employ in their name. Otherwise they will loose their trustworthiness.

But perhaps it is not as big a shame for them as some think it should be...

And the incentives are arguably worse than QA: you get little credit if the result replicates, and potentially a lot of grief if it doesn't. Novel results build careers. Checking them mostly doesn't

On the other hand, this seems like a super interesting path for an (unglamorous) PhD -- replicate the N most important findings in a field, subject to some restrictions (maybe focus on the ones that are "easy", or haven't been replicated yet, or the ones that could be patched together to make an acceptable PhD thesis). This sort of stuff really appeals to me, I think I might end up doing something like that in 5-10 years.