I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results. A

I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results. As a scientist this how I always read papers. It's how I was trained. Don't just read the results, read the paper and critique it - was the method appropriate? were control tests performed? is the statistical analysis sound? And even beyond that - if a substantial claim is made, it's assumed to be an anomaly until reproduced by others. I will say that labs get a reputation. Well known labs with PIs who produce good science are usually treated with a more accepting view (i.e. this is probably true). Unknown labs are treated with a ton of suspicion.