New business ventures are inherently risky.
Research is inherently risky, and we would expect 90% to 'fail' but for 90% of papers to be rubbish would be a matter of 'extreme corruption' along the lines of 90% of judges taking bribes etc..
"I don't see a better system."
Well, one thing we could do is punish people for knowingly publishing crap results, i.e. have a 'secondary review system' that investigates 'why' results were rubbish, and if there was malfeasance, well, put in place some kind of retribution.
We could also change our tune with respect to expectations, and come to 'expect' that the majority of research should publish then 'null' result and that should just be it.
It's possible for 90% of papers to be rubbish without any ill intent or dishonesty on the part of the experimenter. They might simply suffer from "works for me" syndrome, as it afflicts software developers. In science, this equates to failing to control for all the possible confounding factors that might affect the result of the experiment. They might have carefully controlled for everything they thought of and gotten methodologically valid results, but then when another experimenter tries to replicate it, they find their experimental environment is different in a way that neither considered important but alters the results.
Finding all these conflaters is the point of science. If you can't replicate the experiment, it means the results don't hold, but it doesn't mean the investigators were bad people - and assuming they are is unlikely to get better science.
Without being able to independently verify results, a lot of journals rely on signals like your research & results being noteworthy, which is anticorrelated with them being true. If our understanding of the world is at all correct, you'd expect most experiments to give boring, status-quo results, and your first impulse when you get something noteworthy is to assume the experimenter made a mistake. (Interestingly, this is how things work at the undergrad level - if you measure the speed of light at 1 million meters/sec, your prof will assume you screwed up.)
Probably we need a separate verification step after publication, with researchers evaluated on what fraction of their published results survive verification, not just how many papers they publish. Publish all the noteworthy results you get, but assume that published research doesn't mean much until it's been independently reproduced.
(But this should be obvious to a VC so I may be reading it wrong)