The main problem is the incentives. A researcher's future employment is dependent on their list of publications. The question that researchers face is not 'ho

The main problem is the incentives. A researcher's future employment is dependent on their list of publications. The question that researchers face is not 'how best can I contribute to science?' but is instead 'what can I get published?'. Anyone naive/stubborn/foolish enough to focus on the former question will be weeded out by the system, unless they are exceptionally good. We shouldn't be surprised by the outcomes we see: 'p-value hacking', accepting significant results straight away but fiddling with results you do not like until they become publishable, not wanting to 'waste time' demonstrating that someone else's research isn't really reproducible, not publishing negative (i.e. unsuccessful) results etc etc. I wish I had an easy solution for this problem, but I do not see one - the hiring metric of 'how many publications do you have? which journals?' is a nice simple one, that administrators and funding agencies like to use, for all that it leads to bad incentives and actions.