If that's true, why are replication rates so poor?
There is no feedback post publication. Researchers are expected to individually decide on the quality of a published study, or occasionally ask the colleagues in their department.
I don't get the impression that low replication rates are due to malice generally. I think it's a training and incentive problem most of the time. In that case just asking should often work.
Science has very little feedback and lots of filtering at present. Preregistration is just more filtering. Science needs more feedback.
What kind of feedback would you want to exist?
John Ioannidis has written a very insightful and entertaining article about the current state of the movement which calls itself "Evidence-Based Medicine". The paper is available ahead of print at http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)00147-5/pdf.
As far as I can tell there is currently no paywall, that may change later, send me an e-mail if you are unable to access it.
Retractionwatch interviews John about the paper here: http://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/16/evidence-based-medicine-has-been-hijacked-a-confession-from-john-ioannidis/
(Full disclosure: John Ioannidis is a co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), where I am an employee. I am posting this not in an effort to promote METRICS, but because I believe the links will be of interest to the community)