How so? Finding correct stuff is the whole point of research, no matter the extent at which it actually succeeds in reaching this. So yes, regardless on the actual results it is a major need in academia. We have nothing better anyway (which doesn't need it can't improve; we critically need it to improve).

Now. I'll assume you are referring to "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". This paper is 20 years old, only addresses medical research despite its title, and seems to have mixed reception [1]

> Biostatisticians Jager and Leek criticized the model as being based on justifiable but arbitrary assumptions rather than empirical data, and did an investigation of their own which calculated that the false positive rate in biomedical studies was estimated to be around 14%, not over 50% as Ioannidis asserted.[12] Their paper was published in a 2014 special edition of the journal Biostatistics along with extended, supporting critiques from other statisticians

14% is a huge concern and I think nobody will disagree with this. But we are far from most, if this is true.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Fi...