This is nothing recent though. Back in early 2000s I was trying to reproduce published reactions regarding catalysts leading to certain yields, and virtually all published stuff was absolute garbage and could not be reproduced no matter how many times you tried. That makes you wonder what journals actually do: accept articles on good faith only? That is unforgivable in a scientific society.
Back in the day I had a physics professor who sometimes complained about his inability to reproduce certain published physics experiments - the kind you could do in a small lab and on a limited budget. (We're not talking "Big Physics" here.) Well, the guy wasn't particularly well-liked for a variety of reasons, so we all tended to just chalk this up to probable incompetence on his part. Knowing what I know now, though, I might be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt here - that in fact these experiments were just not reproducible, at least not as described in the literature.
The peer review process is halfway between "accept on good faith" and "reproduce the results". And it's not a flawless compromise. As a peer reviewer, I check that an incoming paper is sane, says something new, and doesn't have obvious holes. But I don't reproduce the original experiment unless it's very quick. Peer review is entirely unpaid and uncredited, so I can't justify taking time from my own research.
Ideally, every research team would have a remote collaborator that checks their results and gets credit for doing so (even if the answer is no!). But right now there is nothing to incentivize that kind of rigor.
