Since I received more discussion on this (thank you!), so I'll add a few things:
The null ritual convention incentivizes p-hacking, in turn incentivizing peer reviewers to accept more studies that align with "nice-sounding," p-hacked studies. The review process itself is most definitely affected by p-hacking in this regard, though I agree the convention is much easier to change than the system of peer review. However, I think the overall peer review system itself is in need of upheaval because of the aforementioned point. By "nice-sounding," I mean in more of a political way, as in "this study shows that eating dark chocolate every day makes you skinny, we'd like to promote that in our journal, so let's accept more studies that seemingly replicate this."
Since I received more discussion on this (thank you!), so I'll add a few things:
The null ritual convention incentivizes p-hacking, in turn incentivizing peer reviewers to accept more studies that align with "nice-sounding," p-hacked studies. The review process itself is most definitely affected by p-hacking in this regard, though I agree the convention is much easier to change than the system of peer review. However, I think the overall peer review system itself is in need of upheaval because of the aforementioned point. By "nice-sounding," I mean in more of a political way, as in "this study shows that eating dark chocolate every day makes you skinny, we'd like to promote that in our journal, so let's accept more studies that seemingly replicate this."