no it's a long term incoming failure

partially due to legacy of science historically being rooted in "it matters more who you (or your parents) are" societies (due to them having had the money in somewhat modern history) (or like some would say the "old white man problem", except it has nothing to do with skin color, or man and only limited to do with old)

partially due to how much more "science (output)" is produced today and ways which once worked to have reasonable QA don't work that well in todays scale anymore

partially due to how many flows

partially due to human nature (as in people tend to care more about "exiting", "visible" things etc.)

People have been pushing for change in a lot of ways like:

- pushing to make full re-poducability a must have (but that is hard, especially for statistics based things only a few companies can even afford to try to run. But also hard due to it requiring a lot of transparency and open data access, and especially the alter is often very much something many owners of data sets are not okay with.

- pushing for more appreciation of null results, or failures. (To be clear I mean both appreciation in form of monetary support and in the traditional sense of the word of people (colleges) appreciating it).

- pushing for more verifying of papers by trying to reproduce it (both as in more money/time resources for it and in changing the mind set from it being a daunting unappreciated task to it being a nice thing to do)

but to little change happened in the end before modern LLM AI hit the scene and now it has made things so much harder as it's now easy to mass produce slob but reasonable looking (non) sience