Well, the statistical criticisms they mention seem less damning than the statistical problems of the average psych paper.

Talk about faint praise!

But its far from the only psych paper with unreasonably large effect size.

It's far from the only psych paper Gelman has slammed either.

Basically, this paper probably actually only constitutes weak evidence, like most of psycology.

Such volumes of faint praise!

But it sounds good enough to be published.

The work of Ioannidis and others is well-known, and it's clear that the problems he identifies in medical research apply as much or more to psychology. Statisticians such as Gelman pound on junk papers. And yet people still consider stuff like the present paper (which I haven't read, I'm just going by what Gelman says about it) to be good enough to be published. Why?