I think one of the root causes for the problems in publishing is that "original" research has much higher status than the grunt work that contributes to the quality of research.
PhD students should probably spend much of their effort in trying to replicate published research papers, instead of publishing "original" research. This would teach them a lot about the typical quality issues in their research field, allowing them to produce quality "original" papers later.
This may sometimes even allow them to publish highly influencial papers that show the limitations of published papers, because quality issues seem so widely spread. This would also allow them to really contribute to the field.
I think we would see this if Universities and journals would take the research quality seriously.
PhD students should probably spend much of their effort in trying to replicate published research papers, instead of publishing "original" research. This would teach them a lot about the typical quality issues in their research field, allowing them to produce quality "original" papers later.
This may sometimes even allow them to publish highly influencial papers that show the limitations of published papers, because quality issues seem so widely spread. This would also allow them to really contribute to the field.
I think we would see this if Universities and journals would take the research quality seriously.