this is a bit of an opinion piece by me, but it is short Replication of studies really is the gold standard of scientific research, yet rarely happens leaving a scientific literature that is awash with interesting but unconfirmed findings (see Once Is Not Enough). It's a huge problem in CFS research. One big reason that people don't even attempt repliction - across life sciences - is that journals want novelty, and replication is the exact opposite of that. But here is a case where it did happen: Nature Biotechnology has made a lot of noise about publishing a replication study with no novelty value, though as they point out it has considerable importance. The new study represents a failure to replicate a very surprising finding, which implied the gene regulation mechanisms inside some plants, if eaten, could affect human gene expression too. Think they were also having a pop at a rival journal (Cell Research) that published the original paper, and turned down the failed replication on the grounds that “it is a bit hard to publish a paper of which the results are largely negative.” Sadly, this attitude is all too common. Perhaps this high profile publication will make it easier for researchers to publish replication studies, and that will be doing science a big favour.