Sorry for assuming you had easy access to the paper. Given that you don't, you are of course free to decide whether the pop science report warrants further investigation. However to authoritatively criticize and speculate on the details of a paper you haven't read, I think lowers the quality of discussion here.

I'm not a Bayesian but nevertheless, I don't agree that my conclusion is similar to yours. Prima facie, the effect itself seems fairly robust across the five experiments, but their theory as to why (which they did go reasonably far to test), still needs more experiments to be established. This is not a bug, and that does not make it a low quality paper. This is how science works. There may be more subtle problems that I (not being a statistician, or a psychologist) may have missed, but those can't be known without delving into the details.