No , you ' re just blowing the issue out of proportion . A huge amount of those unreplicated results aren ' t published in legitimate journals . Most are published in journals that just charge you a small fee to publish with no oversight . The reason for that is the fact that many academics are required to publish regular research to keep their jobs . You want to prevent bogus results ? Ruining livelihoods isn ' t the answer , it ' s fixing the system that demands regular published results from scientists . So scientists are forced into getting funding which means they need to go for something to set them apart . That means proposing questionable research because repeating old studies won ' t yield funding . So they have to go for something with less background and they have to publish quickly . They don ' t have time to hire compliance specialists because that doubles the time frame for their experiment . So either they rush their study increases errors or they fabricate results so they can publish in time . You make it clear that you have no experience in science , because everything you ' re proposing doesn ' t work , and your comparison to banking is so different that it ' s an irrelevant comparison . Plus , afaik , the majority of those false studies are in the field of psychology , not science as a whole . It makes sense given the difficulty and expense of creating a psychological study with a large and diverse group of test and control subjects . Again , they ' re desperate to publish on a strict budget because you clearly don ' t understand the difficulty in acquiring funding , just double the funding is like telling depressed people to just not be sad , so they choose test subjects that fit their hypothesis . Because that ' s another thing , publishing results that don ' t match your hypothesis isn ' t okay , so researchers actively work to make their results match their hypothesis . Everyone in science knows about the issue in replicating results . The problem is the demands and requirements for researchers to keep their jobs . Blacklisting them from the science community for a single mistake without amending what the system demands of them would just kill scientific research . Everyone would go for the safe research that yields zero progress because researching something new could ruin them . What you ' re suggesting is like saying that a lawyer should be disbarred if they lose a case . It ' s inane .