Seriously though, I would have imagined that the papers should only get published if the results themselves were reproducible.
Who is going to reproduce unpublished work? Who is going to even know there is something reproduce if it hasn't been published? Publication of the original study necessarily comes before independent replication.
Somehow those are skipped and the whole peer review system is in trouble. At the end, I would think whoever reviewed the papers should also be disciplined.
I think you don't understand how peer review works. Publication is just the first step.
Real Users never know what they want, but they always know when your program doesn't deliver it.