what do you think can be done here? These people obviously know that their studies can't be replicated, they are not ignorant so they are obviously malicious.
I don't think that's fair to say at all. I can come up with several ways a study can non-maliciously arrive at a false conclusion:
1. The researchers may accidentally leak information to the participants regarding the hypothesis being studied. When using human subjects, it's very difficult to avoid biasing them toward results they may think you're looking for.
2. Researchers may not sufficiently blind themselves during the experiment, causing them to have undue influence on the outcome, even if they're not consciously trying to exert it.
3. Some unknown confounding effect may be at play during the experiment that wasn't properly accounted and controlled for.
Those are just three I could think of. When dealing with behavioral sciences, I can't imagine how difficult it must be to design a test protocol that eliminates all the messiness of the meatbags being studied.
A proportion of studies will produce false positives just by chance even if they're conducted perfectly.
"These people obviously know that their studies can't be replicated"
and what's so "obvious" about it?
Or, also, about the second jump to conclusion: "they are not ignorant, so they are obviously malicious."
Perhaps they fell prey to the same thinking that everything is "obvious" instead, taking for granted a lot of things that they should have checked?
If I had a dime for every time a physics undergraduate makes a subtle and unintentional flaw during an experiment that, were it not a mistake, would overturn a century of science that we know Just Works.