It's not just the publishing process that's broken. The funding process is problematic as well. Among the competitors for grant money, it is the investigators

It's not just the publishing process that's broken. The funding process is problematic as well. Among the competitors for grant money, it is the investigators that promise to do a lot with the minimal amount of funding that can reasonably be believed to be feasible for the project who end up winning the grant money. This optimizes the funding process to select for proposals that aim to collect the bare minimum of data that the statistician says is required to see a "significant" result (because data collection is the expensive part of doing a study). If the investigator's estimate of the effect size is off, then the sample size is insufficient and spurious results are more likely. Change the funding process to select for proposals that involve collecting a sample size that is larger than strictly necessary for the expected effect size by some margin of safety and you'll get research results that are more likely to actually be true.