>>14599916
If you follow metascience extensively, well, there are a lot of ongoing arguments vis a vi the extent or quality and character of low replications.
A favorite of mine on this topic is "Why most psychological research findings are not even wrong" by Anne M. Scheel https://psyarxiv.com/8w2sd/
The replication crisis so-called is very poorly understood by laypeople in my experience, and is often just tossed around to act as a slur or dismiss evidence. Meanwhile the discussion among scientists has been quite extensive, because quite a lot of interpretations can have equally likely alternatives as to their causes or results.
The sub-components are more interesting, frankly, than the overall vague narratives people construct. Such as the unwillingness of journals to publish replications, including null findings, and the perverse incentive structure in academia against checking work. This has gotten better, but has leagues to go because journals have all incentive in the world to not publish null or replication findings. Scientists have increasingly taken to journals devoted to metascience and replication, and self-publication or publication through university.
In effect, academic journals are losing their power. As newer generations move in, fewer and fewer people will give any shits about a journal that perversely protects its reputation by refusing to investigate prior publication. This, more than fraud or anything else, remains the big inflexible issue. Boomers in charge care about journals that don't care about truth, and they need to fucking die or retire already.