While I agree with the points raised about incentives, the logic is once again in the antagonistic camp and even plain wrong (cf. if they only would be "afraid of having their careers damaged"). No.

That is: the problems are in the system.

Better: if not plain fraud, the "faulty" papers should stay where they are, and editors (or conference chairs, etc.) should encourage follow-ups (incl. replications, commentaries, and whatever), which, with "modern" technology, could be linked to the papers.