The real problem is not p-hacking (this is bad), but the lack of replication. All problems in science can be solved with replication, but almost nobody does it because it is near impossible to get a replication study published in a worthwhile journal.
No other problem in science is more important to solve.
Just like peer review is a necessary step for a study to be taken seriously, replication studies should be regarded as the direct next step. There needs to be incentive to reproduce the experiment.
Replication is far more important than peer review. I would rather a 1/10th the number of "advances" published if I could rely on the results to be true, and even more importantly, robust.
When I used to run a lab we used to only consider results that had been replicated in at least two unconnected labs. Everything else was just a waste of time (on average).
No other problem in science is more important to solve.