The advisor gets all the credit for publishing and none of the blame for retracting. That’s why some labs have been hit by multiple retractions (clearly a indicator of fraud culture) but only the low level researchers are punished
The problem is that academic publishing isn't tied to any real fitness function.
Unlike a startup or company or some other thing where you vote with dollars on utility, many papers can't be quantitatively evaluated on how much they contribute to science.
Some papers are obvious and groundbreaking, but a lot of research is at such a frontier that literally no one else can evaluate it. You just nod your head and trust it.
That, coupled with the fact that negative results just aren't published, is incredibly inefficient and disheartening.
