Unfortunately yes - bullshit is how many make their living in business. You would expect separation between doing and studying however, it is quite looked down

Unfortunately yes - bullshit is how many make their living in business. You would expect separation between doing and studying however, it is quite looked down upon for field researchers to maul sheep along with the wolves when studying livestock-wildlife interactions. As for research as a whole it would require a metanalysis of a lot of papers over the year. It is possible it was always distributed about the same, or there were other filtering effects like stinkers didn't propagate as far in the past with higher publishing costs so we can't tell for sure. Snark aside it is more like a clickbait article in making assertions and failing to either provide qualatative justifications or properly constrain them to the subset actually examined. Most businesses fail and dissolve in their first year period. A qualatative study that looked at numbers of "great outliers" may be more permissible but one which tries to make broad claims. It isn't even consistent with the definitions, and axiomatically assumes low quality and waste for veblen goods. There have long been whole markets out there for high status "green" or "socially conscious" goods that cost more than the commodity as effective status signaling as an effect (whether it is primary or secondary depends on the individuals involved and their sincerity and consistency of action). Low quality is also poorly defined. They imply cheap goods upsold but that doesn't make it poor enterpenuariship - going bankrupt in an easily preventable way and failing would be though. It appears to be yet another tedious academic political axe grinder.