Assume that one is building upon an already tested , statistically significant, peer reviewed and published idea (e.g. could be some X and Y relationships). Unfortunately, replication of the original idea isnt working this time, impeding further development of the idea. Considering such studies alone allow us see the original phenomena from a different perspective, why then are not such studies a candidate for publication? Wouldnt such non-significant studies motivate new research that looks into why the second study failed? Ofcourse , there might be some variables that change over time (T1-original study date and T2-replicated study date) that probably brought in the shift of the effect from being significant to non-significant (e.g. change in technology, universal events that changed how people behave,...etc). I always wonder why journals are only seeking after a statistically significant effect, but that principle immediately changes for a meta-analysis.