It shouldn't be, though. It may be easy for a scientist to look at the method sections of two papers that had p<0.05 results and say of the first "that looks li

It shouldn't be, though. It may be easy for a scientist to look at the method sections of two papers that had p<0.05 results and say of the first "that looks like a solid study with a reasonable conclusion and robust controls" and of the other "that's bogus". The problem is that without this expert panel making these calls, both studies got published, were given the same credibility, and got consumed by non-experts. Peer review and the publishing process are supposed to weed out the obviously bad studies, but they're not doing so.