An article claiming that only 11% of findings could be reproduced doesn't cite its sources, thus rendering the findings of the article unreproducible. Nice work!
I don't know why this doesn't cause a huge stir in the scientific community. Seems like everyone is fine with people sweeping their negative data under the rug. Shameful is a very mild word for that.
If you had to ask the author for more details then their paper was incomplete - perhaps that's why it could not be reproduced.
If tax-funded scientists can't uphold high standards for themselves, the public is entitled to demand them to do so.
Notice they say they got help without the shaming part so the scientists were willing to participate, just not get listed.
I personally know scientists who have helped out with disproving their own findings, it's not uncommon.