Based on the abstract, it seems Alexander Bird’s Understanding the replication crisis as a base rate fallacy has it backwards. Is there reason to dig into the paper?
He notes a core feature of the crisis:
If most of the hypotheses under test are false, then there will be many false hypotheses that are apparently supported by the outcomes of well conducted experiments and null hypothesis significance tests with a type-I error rate (α) of 5%.
Then he says this solves the problem:
Failure to recognize this is to commit the fallacy of ignoring the base rate.
But it merely states the problem: Why most published research findings are false.