Which would these be? I skimmed through the article and found nothing beyond the standard 'truth must become more important', and I doubt if that should even be called a solution.

I guess it's these, from the last section of the main text:

Some suggestions for potential amendments that can be tested have been made in previous articles (Ioannidis, 2005; Young, Ioannidis, & Al-Ubaydli, 2008) and additional suggestions are made also by authors in this issue of Perspectives. Nosek et al. (2012) provide the most explicit and extensive list of recommended changes, including promoting paradigm-driven research; use of author, reviewer, editor checklists; challenging the focus on the number of publications and journal impact factor; developing metrics to identify what is worth replicating; crowdsourcing replication efforts; raising the status of journals with peer review standards focused on soundness and not on the perceived significance of research; lowering or removing the standards for publication; and, finally, provision of open data, materials, and workflow. Other authors are struggling with who will perform these much-desired, but seldom performed, independent replications. Frank and Saxe (2012) and Grahe et al. (2012) suggest that students in training could populate the ranks of replicators. Finally, Wagenmakers et al. (2012) repeat the plea for separating exploratory and confirmatory research and demand rigorous a priori registration of the analysis plans for confirmatory research.