> there's got to be a market for someone to create a new journal that only accepts/publishes research that has been independently reproduced at least a few time

> there's got to be a market for someone to create a new journal that only accepts/publishes research that has been independently reproduced at least a few times and has an actually meaningful peer review process and standards. I doubt it. All the incentives for all parties are in the exact opposite direction: - A journal gains readership based on how many studies it can publish. If it barely publishes any, no one will buy it. Would you buy a magazine that didn't publish anything? - The doctors and their backers in turn wouldn't give a shit if they got declined by this theoretical journal. They get declined all the time for far less legitimate reasons, most of the time submitting to as many journals as they can, since they will be declined by the majority. - The journal itself if it's too choosy and lacks the existing brand recognition is incentivized to publish anything it can, which is why most startup journals are even worse than the existing (bad) ones.