usually you reproduce previous research as a byproduct of doing something novel "on top" of the previous result. I dont really see the problem with the current setup.

sometimes you can just do something new and assume the previous result, but thats more the exception. youre almost always going to at least in part reproducr the previous one. and if issues come up, its often evident.

thats why citations work as a good proxy. X number of people have done work based around this finding and nobody has seen a clear problem

theres a problem of people fabricating and fudging data and not making their raw data available ("on request" or with not enough meta data to be useful) which wastes everyones time and almost never leads to negative consequences for the authors

It's often quite common to see a citation say "BTW, we weren't able to reproduce X's numbers, but we got fairly close number Y, so Table 1 includes that one next to an asterisk."

The difficult part is surfacing that information to readers of the original paper. The semantic scholar people are beginning to do some work in this area.