Science is a system, not a series of published recipes. Even the best, most-cited papers in scientific history, when taken in isolation, are often riddled with problems. No paper is perfect, but the process of science, over time, validates the papers that are worth validating. Experiments are rarely reproduced exactly, but rather, reproduced under a thousand different conditions, thus proving that the result is robust over time.
I've often felt that these efforts to mass-reproduce scientific literature are misguided. Anyone who has worked in a lab knows that most papers are difficult to reproduce for any number of reasons, and that even if you have a perfect description of materials and methods, plenty of correct and valid results are difficult to reproduce, just because lab work is hard and messy. It's not fair to fling accusations of impropriety simply because an experiment doesn't work in your hands.