I think the solution to this is that science publication needs to be done like science itself. Just as scientists commit to doing experiments without knowing wh

I think the solution to this is that science publication needs to be done like science itself. Just as scientists commit to doing experiments without knowing what the results of the experiments will be, publishers need to commit to publishing experiments without knowing what the results of the experiments will be. Publishers need to be involved earlier in the process. Instead of submitting a completed research finding, scientists should apply to publish research before doing it, and if the topic of research is interesting to the publisher, both scientist and publisher should commit to publish in that journal, no matter what the results are. Additionally, publishers should commit to publish only something like 1/3 research into new topics, with the other 2/3 being publishing attempt to reproduce previous interesting results. I don't mean a slavish repetition of existing experiments, but taking a critical eye toward testing the same hypotheses with different (hopefully better) methodology.