A key factor behind psychology's low replication rate is the absence of theories that define the field. In most science fields, an initial finding can be compared to theory before publication, which may weed out unlikely results in advance. But psychology doesn't have this option -- no theories, so no Litmus test.

It's important to say that a psychology study can be scientific in one sense -- say, rigorous and disciplined, but at the same time be unscientific, in the sense that it doesn't test a falsifiable, defining psychological theory -- because there aren't any of those.

Or, to put it more simply, scientific fields require falsifiable theories about some aspect of nature, and the mind is not part of nature.

Future neuroscience might fix this, but don't hold your breath for that outcome. I suspect we'll have AGI in artificial brains before we have testable, falsifiable neuroscience theories about our natural brains.