By that metric all of science has failed, or at least the biomedical fields.

Psychology looks like particle physics compared to fields like dentistry, and not a lot different from a lot of biomedical fields.

Psychology is just the messenger — meta-science goes under the radar but it's probably its biggest contribution to science at large.

I agree about replication in any case (not just psychological studies), but I have to say this seems like it probably would. If anything I think it underrepresents the phenomenon it studies because support for corruption and unethical behavior is likely to be underestimated in this kind of setting/design.

> By that metric all of science has failed, or at least the biomedical fields.

How much should we weaken our epistemic standard in order to avoid difficult conclusions?