That was fascinating. I have to take issue with the last couple sentences:
Trying to replicate old results is rarely regarded as social science worth publishing in the top journals. That must change.
"Becoming a myth" or becoming accepted fact based on one or a few studies is just one way it happens. It can also be the case that the same or very similar experiments are replicated to get similar results but are all based on a false premise or miss some important alternative hypothesis. So I don't think simply replicating an old experiment should be encouraged at all. Instead, different results that lead to similar (or different) conclusions should be encouraged. I don't know if journals are the problem. As far as I know, they still do publish plenty of that kind of work, especially if it convincingly refutes old conclusions. I think researchers themselves are more to blame for the same misunderstanding represented by this quote from the article -- that journals simply won't publish such results. (Or rereading it, maybe it isn't blaming the journals exactly. That was my first interpretation. That darn passive tense!) They will if the method used is novel or the results show a new way of looking at the older results.