[dalbasal]

I suppose you could say the same about the journals, or the academic institutions. The systems and norms are what they are, the incentives are what they are and if they don't have to do something they won't.

I'm not sure who is responsible for making a better way. Probably no one. Change is often a matter of someone taking initiative and there are a few parties that could, if they consider it important.

IMO, the "replication crisis" should be having a more far-reaching effect on the institution of science. In some fields, the crisis means that the efforts of an entire generation were largely wasted. In those same fields, it is almost business as usual, with new unreplicable experiments being published. Knowledge was not actually being built. In some fields, the institutional scientific method (journals, peer review..) was not really practicing the scientific method, not practicing science.

I don't know what the solution is, but whatever it is I cannot imagine that it does not involve working scientists making choices. What is tenure for, if not allowing senior researchers the independance to do this.