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.
