The factors I mention – fast patenting/profit-seeking, odd axes/combinations to get a result, unclear blinding, inconsistency with other expected fly lifetimes – are all the kinds of things correlated with flimsy results. It's usually wishful thinking, not conscious forgery, that leads such authors to overlook the weaknesses in their setup when they get a publishable/profitable result.

I do have a high opinion of my ability to detect flimsy results from the details (or missing details!) of a scientific paper, from decades of reading and watching which results hold up, and which don't.

You're practicing scientism – sacralizing certain procedures, titles, or outlets – rather than science here. Science requires a high standard of proof, and recognizing patterns of misreporting. There's even a strong case to be made that "most published research findings are false":

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...