I think the hope with these systems is that eventually there will be a preponderance of evidence that proves the study in general terms, not necessarily that everything in this study is 100%. Later scientists will follow along and prove/disprove these findings. If all the studies are 50-50, then we have no idea. If it is 90-10, findings indicate some kernel of truth in these studies. An astute grad student may also be encouraged to look at the 10% that disagreed to see why or if the 90 are too susceptible to selection bias (meaning they decided their conclusion from the beginning and are massaging the data to fit).

The wrong incentives for studies are a bigger problem. I think the only way to solve that is with a higher threshold of peer review to be required before one of these "findings" is put out to the public.