That's the obvious brute force solution, but a possibly more elegant route is just to have an international trials register. This suggestion has been around for a while, and should be significantly less costly (and controversial) than the pre-commit to publishing route while still giving some useful tools for checking on things like publication bias, double publication, etc.

But just like many other obvious improvements we can all think of to the process of science, this one will not be carried out.

To a certain extent, it is being carried out for drug studies, but it requires centralization. At least, various central authorities have promised to require some pre-registration, but they may fail, as in the data availability story. Individuals can do meta-analyses that are skeptical of the original publications. and they do, on special occasions.

I think I've heard the line about parapsychology as a joke in a number of places, but I heard it seriously from Vassar.

have journals approve study designs for publication in advance, including all statistical tools to be used; and then you do the study and run the preselected analysis and publish the results, regardless of whether positive or negative

Brilliant.

Maybe a notary service for such plans would become popular from the ground up. Of course, to get voluntary adoption, you'd have to implement a guarantee of secrecy for a desired time period (even though the interests of science would be best served by early publicity, those scientists want their priority).

Let's see, just the right protocol for signing/encrypting, and ... never mind, it will never be used until some high status scientists want to show off ;)