I don't really think that research w/o those characteristics can even be considered, in principle, reproducible .
ohhhhh, well there's the thing... most research on human behaviour is only reproducible in the abstract and then likely only in statistical relations. reproducibility as such is not what makes something science or scientific, or even worthwhile. in fact, i'd argue that finding a reproducible thing... most of the time has nothing to do with science per se, but quite alot more to do with organizational theory, but that's a whole other set of arguments.
If you are working in quantitative methods, reproducibility likely means reproducing the outcome - particularly lab sciences. It has always been my understanding that reproducibility in qualitative methods means reproducing the study...which may have differencing outcomes since different subjects would be involved. Of course the differing outcomes would have to be discussed and accounted for in the publication.