I think the so-called "replication crisis"[0] might have something to do with it, particularly in psychology.
The misaligned incentives to publish frequently to have a nice-looking list of articles to show when you next apply for a grant means there's tons of flimsy research that goes unquestioned. It's also fairly attractive to jump on specific bandwagons and publish noise just to get your name out there. A lot of these meta-studies are looking inward, at the field itself and what is currently accepted, and finding that a fair bit of it is of very poor quality, if not straight-up nonsense.
I think, overall, it's a good thing. Research should not be focused exclusively on new knowledge. We should also be validating what others put out there, to make sure it's worth listening to.
The misaligned incentives to publish frequently to have a nice-looking list of articles to show when you next apply for a grant means there's tons of flimsy research that goes unquestioned. It's also fairly attractive to jump on specific bandwagons and publish noise just to get your name out there. A lot of these meta-studies are looking inward, at the field itself and what is currently accepted, and finding that a fair bit of it is of very poor quality, if not straight-up nonsense.
I think, overall, it's a good thing. Research should not be focused exclusively on new knowledge. We should also be validating what others put out there, to make sure it's worth listening to.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis