50% replication success rate. I suspect, the authors of the article are a bit too generous to call the original work 'sloppy'. And that the alternative would b

50% replication success rate. I suspect, the authors of the article are a bit too generous to call the original work 'sloppy'. And that the alternative would be: no experiments with conclusions' -- and that's, in their view, is worse. I disagree with that, I think 'being lied to', is worse than to 'not being told'. What if the original work was purposely fake just get a grant from some group (political or commercial)? If that's the case, than the field of psychology is a composed of big number of 'full-stack con-artists'.