In a conversation with a journalist regarding bad research papers, I said, “I think there are journals and years where I would guess more than half the papers have essentially fatal errors.”
The journalist asked me where this estimate came from, and I replied:
I have no systematic statistics on this. My “more than half” estimate was based on my casual glance at some Psychological Science promotional material a few years ago; see slides 14-16 here.
I’m guessing that the N = 17, 57, 42, and 47 studies are nothing but noise mining. And, as I recall, the N = 222,924 study had some serious problems too.
When you hear about 38% of psychology studies replicating, that’s just because the replicators included some serious studies in their replications. Had they just tried to replicate the junk, I expect the replication rate would’ve been something closer to 5%.