The major journals have absolutely no accountability. In any other market, if the product doesn't work or harms someone the company goes out of business or the maker is sued. Not so in journals. So, why do we accept it? Because there's no other way for the layman to determine what makes a good professor, because by definition, they are smarter than us (or at least they're supposed to be), and so we (the general public) are not able to tell if they are good at what they do or not.

So - the answer we have is peer review, which is just the foxes guarding the hen house. There's no other solution that's been proposed that makes any sense in a self reinforcing market manner. Having some post-docs suddenly become concerned about this and hire a bunch of undergraduates to start using to comb excel with spreadsheets will be useful until everyone loses interest. The price of a can of Coca-Cola isn't useful until people lose interest - it's market priced by millions of customers at every minute of every day.

Until there's a solution to this problem that makes sense this will keep happening over and over again.