[hrzn]

A lot of these issues also have to do with the publishing system.

There is no incentive in publishing stuff that don't work even though they were reasonable things to try. This indirectly pushes a lot of bad/flawed/incomplete papers and results to be published. Even if your methodology is flawed but you try hard enough, you have a >0 probability of getting your paper published somewhere.

As part of a solution, I think we would benefit from the existence of prestigious journals for negative results, which would incentivise also publishing what doesn't work. This way researchers wouldn't have to try massaging their data and experiments until it looks like it works. They could just publish that it doesn't work, and it would be good for them too.