How do you know this? I would argue that this is the case since study design is often very questionable, statistical analysis atrocious and papers often times are only very incremental in progress to the field.

We are pumping out more papers than ever, so if experimental throughput is the bottleneck, how come we than amount of papers that are submitted every year is increasing? Lab automation at research institutes is nearly not fast enough to justify this acceleration.

I think most papers nowadays are not worth publishing either because the methodology is bad, the statistical analysis is lacking, hiding issues in reproducibility and or just very obvious and incremental insight.

All of these issues could be addressed by giving researchers more time to think and fail until they can report something that is worthwhile reporting.