All professional scientists are expected to publish; if they do not publish, their employers, whether it is a university or a for-profit company, will look to hire more published specialists. The more published you are, the more desired you are.
This behavior has resulted in a the greatest amount of information on our world we have ever known. The cost for this, however, is having more data points than can be analyzed and too many papers being published with rushed or outright fabricated data. The problem becomes compounded by the number of trustworthy researchers seems to grow smaller every year when another esteemed specialist is found to have falsified their work. But, this does not mean the system is going to buckle under its own weight; it means the system has to grow and change.
Perhaps we should stop stressing the need for scientists to pump out peer-reviewed article after peer-reviewed article. Most of the fabricated data that gets released stems from the need of the specialists who think that is how the experiment would have turned out or should have turned out, and we only learn the data is fabricated when someone else decides to run the experiment. If we are going to base new research off the works of these men and women, why are we rushing them and always expecting conclusive results? We need to change how we think before we can see the system change to a better form.