This is a problem I find tiring about most studies, even in the sciences (excluding most physics and all mathematics). It seems as if most researchers are looking for a novel or interesting correlation or apply an interesting model to a new domain. Generally, I've found this puts insufficient effort into any kind of disconfirmation.
It makes sense, though, with the incentives most academic journals put into study authors. Nothing's sexy about disproving some random model fits.
Replication and publishing negative results do not get the respect they deserve. They should be given equal attention and funding as novel results. That would fix the replication crisis.
Are they not published in the major journals, or are they not published at all? The latter would seem insane. "We've tried this, it didn't work, but nobody will know and somebody will try it again next week to find out that it doesn't work."
They get published in lower impact journals because it's not as sexy. They get less funding for similar reasons.
I think a change of bureaucratic structure might be needed, like funding for every study should include funding for at least one independent replication.
Not only would the replication itself cull some of the false results, but knowing a replication was coming might make researchers more open and honest, ie. less p hacking, document more of their methods and in greater detail, etc.
It makes sense, though, with the incentives most academic journals put into study authors. Nothing's sexy about disproving some random model fits.