How can we recognize accurate scientific results when things like p-hacking are so common? Research has shown that most of the published studies in various fields are false. For example, the Reproducibility Project: Psychology only managed to confirm 36% of previous 100 psychology studies had a statistically signifiant result the second time. Also, only 6 of 53 studies considered landmark in cancer were successfully replicated. In these circumstances, when such a quantity of false studies pass the peer-review process in most scientific fields, how can we filter authentic information from fields we don't have expertise in?
First thing to consider is that research can never provide absolute certainty. Any result you find is only preliminary. You can have various degrees of preliminary: a single study with an acceptable but not brilliant design can provide interesting clues or first steps for a larger project, but not much more. It is right and productive that these studies are published, but don't treat them as truth.

Second thing to consider is that the problem is not necessarily with the articles themselves, but with the lack of replication. So, if you find a result that interest you, try to find replications. If none exist, then you need to be more careful.