To be accurate the paper should then come to the conclusion that "a majority of published work is inconclusive and fails in the proper application of statistics

To be accurate the paper should then come to the conclusion that "a majority of published work is inconclusive and fails in the proper application of statistics used to support their claims" instead of "a majority of science publications are wrong". The second is just pure sensationalist troll. I'm not arguing against the work itself, or against more rigorous application of statistics. I'm just arguing against sensationalistic and inflammatory language. Anyone who practices science in a particular field for any length of time will have a pretty good idea of what work is "good" and "bad". Certainly they are smart enough to ignore previous work that has been refuted and/or retracted, and it's not really fair for this previous work to contribute to assessments of what % of the field is "wrong".