This paper lays out the argument that flawed research design, methods and analysis (all be it unintentional) will yield results in greater volume and that are more novel and surprising; and thus, also greater rate of publishing. As publishing is a key factor in deciding who gets to run projects, labs and act as advisers, the methods will be taught to new generations.
The meta-analysis also shows that this is a real problem; and while long been identified, has not been dealt with in the past decades.
Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favour them, leading to the natural selection of bad science.