What testing do science based facts get through to be validated?

[Alex K]

The competition is precisely why it is difficult to get away with manipulation in the long run.
Things get replicated by other people, before that happens you *should* absolutely approach new results with scepticism.

My impression is that research rarely gets replicated by other people. Many experiments are costly or impractical to replicate. The rest simply have no incentive to be replicated; journals tend to only publish novel findings and institutions aren't interested in funding duplicate studies that have already been done.

The only exception for this is in the field of psychology. Where psychologists established the Open Science foundation (if I'm not mistaken), and began testing reproducibility of their own field. Hence why the "replication crisis" was headlines a few years ago. As far as I know, psychologists are the only ones doing this. I think once other fields of science begin replicating their own research in similar fashion, we'll see that much research that is published, and that we think are foundational to modern science, doesn't pass replication.

Your impression is maybe true for individual studies no-one bothers to redo for a while, but things which enter the scientific consensus of a field are usually vetted. I can certainly say that with confidence for my own field. Social psychology has had some troubles with some studies regarded as classics being problematic, but I'm not the person to defend social psychology here, I'll gladly defend physics and related areas which are extremely rigorous.