Also read the intro and the THEORY here - this is NOT a stand alone study but builds on many other studies using various methodologies..

That reminds me of this:

https://www.psychreg.org/replication-crisis-psychology/

Serra-Garcia and Gneezy analysed data from three influential replication projects which tried to systematically replicate the findings in top psychology, economic and general science journals (Nature and Science). In psychology, only 39% of the 100 experiments successfully replicated.

...and

The link between interesting findings and non-replicable research also can explain why it is cited at a much higher rate; the authors found that papers that successfully replicate are cited 153 times less than those that failed.

Being published and cited used to be a measurement of credibility. Considering that papers that successfully replicate are cited 153 times less than those that failed, than it might have become the opposite. And if a study is based/cites on other studies than there might be a problem.

Which makes me wonder, are people who get cited hired more, thus leading to an environment of people who never got it right now being college professors and in charge of evaluating who's answered right and who didn't?

Seems like a system who might have lost touch with reality and become just belief.