I don't think it is that pessimistic. Yes there are low-quality papers out there but I'd rather have 100 low-quality papers if it gives us 1 truly insightful p

I don't think it is that pessimistic. Yes there are low-quality papers out there but I'd rather have 100 low-quality papers if it gives us 1 truly insightful piece of research. Any expert worth their salt can read a paper and judge its veracity very quickly, and it is those high-quality papers that get cited. Even when one of those high-quality publications gets shown to be false, it moves the field forward. Real science is incremental and slow.