I didn't provide a full answer. Let me try again:
As a general rule (and there are many journals with exceptions or small variations) the scientific report is structured thusly:
Title, (an accurate, descriptive and useful title), Authors, etc. (all authors, their institutional affiliations, and contact information) Abstract ( a terse summary), Introduction (a general discussion of why this experiment should have been done), Method (what was done and how, usually a very precise description),Apparatus (a tech description of the scientific equipment used and how it was used), Results section (wherein the hard data are presented with virtually no discussion resembling an interpretation, Interpretation of Results (The word interpretation is limited in its meaning here. It means a clarifying instruction manual on how to statistically assign significance to the various data. Here is the section where the authors have to say if they confirmed their hypothesis or not, Discussion (Here is the "speculative" section that disturbs you so.) Here, also, is where peer review can be seriously critical (I've published and served on peer reviews many, many times). The author cannot get away with bizarre or wild speculation, nor can the author speculate beyond positions inconsistent with the data and the known facts about the Topic, Summary (what we did, why we did it,how we did it, what we found, and what we think it means).
So, this is the "standard" protocol for the initial dissemination scientific research.
Your suggestions for improvement...?
Liberals and utopians believe in perfectability, and I'm neither and I don't. It's already a pretty darn good system--except that people are flawed and scientists are as flawed as any humans. This seems to me a rather straightforward assertion--which has produced some alarm among the white-coated. ("Heavens--are we no better than the next guy? Then why did I get that Phd, anyway?")
Ineffectiveness of peer review led the dingaling state guv in CA to set aside $3B based on stem-cell "discoveries" which have since been exposed as fraud. Here is a monumental failure, which ought to cause more than a moment of humility.
Maybe my suggestion would be to look at the peers of peer review with a speculative and skeptical eye...? Like, who watches the watchdog?