Background: the answers and comments on this question prompted this question.
I know that when a new scientific theory is published there is a rush for people to devise experiment to prove or disprove it. However there is lot of research that involves original experiments that are not necessarily related to new not-yet-proven/accepted theories.
Now, obviously science relies heavily on peer-verification of theories and experiments, but are experiments today actually verified by independent peers?
The thread I linked to made me grow some doubts: if an experiment has so much trouble being funded, how is it possible to scientifically verify the results of already published data, especially of high-cost experiments. If there is no incentive in doing that verification, how can articles describing a new experiment be validated scientifically?
Disclaimer: sorry for the possible dumb question, but I had only a brief experience in academia at the beginning of my career (and it was in SW engineering, where "experiments" are way less common than proof of concepts software, so verification is a far less difficult subject there).
As a further explanation of my doubts, the last time I remember an experiment being rejected because it couldn't be validated was the thing about cold fusion by Fleischman and Pons, back in the late 80s. At least that was a case that reached mainstream media. I guess such events (both validation and rejection) are more common in the specialized journals, but I don't remember any other "big event" that reached the mainstream media since then.
Please, note well that I'm not claiming that experimental results never get published by the mainstream media, here I'm focusing on the validation by peers that are independent from the original authors/scientists.
Maybe I wasn't too clear, possibly because I didn't use the right terminology.
I'm not particularly interested in the review process details (although I welcome any correction about my lack of terminology), but in actual scientific validation of experimental results.
What I really care for is whether or not published scientific experimental results are effectively put under experimental scrutiny by the scientific community.