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

[Alex K]

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.

But being vetted is not the same as being replicated, correct? Most journals do require a reviewing process before publication. But my understanding of that process is that regardless of how rigorous (and sometimes flawed) that process is, the reviewers are doing everything except replicating the experiment, right?

Yes, having something peer reviewed before publication is really just a minimal quality check, not replication. But results which have merely been peer reviewed but not replicated will usually not be universally viewed as canonically accepted results by the community. When other groups try to use a result as a basis for their further work, they will notice whether it works. For example, if Charpentier and Doudna had messed up their CRISPR Cas9 research, thousands of people would have noticed by now.because the method is used daily.