My take on the replication crisis is that it is something 60% bad incentives, 35% bad statistics and 5% malice. Bad incentives is the whole journal system, which incentivizes getting good results and does not deeply scrutinize methodology and source data, the lack of incentives for preregistration, poor quality journals existing, etc.

Bad statistics is mostly the fact that people interpret p<0.05 as true and p>0.05 as worthless results and use it as a threshold for publishing, rather than the crude statistical tool that it really is. Plus just a general bad understanding of statistics by most social scientists. I'm currently doing some research in causal inference, developing methodology that can be used in social science, and it's embarrassing how slow social scientists are in using tools from causal inference. In economics applications are usually 10-20 years behind the research but in psychology for example they often don't even attempt any kind of causal identification but then suggest that their studies somehow show causality.

Malice is scientists just outright faking data or cherry-picking. But even that is tied to the incentive structure. We should normalize publishing negative results