This to me is a crucial statistic. Is this number much less than it should be? Or are many more papers dubious in their methodology?
It's fun to hear people complain about accuracy in this way.
Maybe it's more than it should be, or just about right.
If we are just going to assume our biased preconceived notion is correct and the conflicting data is wrong, why have data? But if we use that method, what is the likelihood that our claim will eventually be retracted?
That begs the question, how did at least four such cutting-edge research works with fabricated data and results go through the review process unscathed?