The main problem is that even if you reproduce their experiment, they can claim that you did some step wrong, perhaps you are mixing it too fast or too slow, or the temperature is not correctly controlled, or that one of your reactive have a contamination that destroy the effect, or magically realize that their reactive that is important.
It's very difficult to publish papers with negative results. So there is a high chance it will not count in your total number of publications. Also, expect a low number of citation, so it's not useful for other metrics like citation count or h.
For the same reason, you will not see publications of exact replications. A good paper X will be followed by almost-replications by another teams, like "we changed this and got X with a 10% improvement" or "we mixed the methods of X and Y and unsurprisingly^W got X+Y". This is somewhat good because it shows that the initial result is robust enough to survive small modifications.
This is an example which did get cites:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6053.20...
But despite the high visibility, you can see the large number of papers published based on the original myth.
And this refutation doesn't have great methodology (but other ones do). It's mostly cited due to strong language used.
Isn't that the moment where you try even harder to falsify the claims in that paper? You already know that you'll succeed so it wouldn't be a waste of time in your effort.