From 'The natural selection of bad science'

 Seems applicable to other areas as well.

"The requirements for natural selection to produce design are easy to satisfy. Darwin outlined the logic of natural selection as requiring three conditions:

(i) There must be variation.

(ii) That variation must have consequences for survival or reproduction.

(iii) Variation must be heritable.

In this case, there are no biological traits being passed from scientific mentors to apprentices. However, research practices do vary. That variation has consequences—habits that lead to publication lead to obtaining highly competitive research positions. And variation in practice is partly heritable, in the sense that apprentices acquire research habits and statistical procedures from mentors and peers. Researchers also acquire research practice from successful role models in their fields, even if they do not personally know them. Therefore, when researchers are rewarded primarily for publishing, then habits which promote publication are naturally selected. Unfortunately, such habits can directly undermine scientific progress." 

"Despite incentives for productivity, many scientists employ rigorous methods and learn new things about the world all the time that are validated by replication or by being effectively put into practice. In other words, there is still plenty of good science out there. One reason is that publication volume is rarely the only determinant of the success or failure of a scientist’s career. Other important factors include the importance of one’s research topic, the quality of one’s work, and the esteem of one’s peers. The weight of each factor varies among disciplines, and in some fields such factors may work positively to promote behaviours leading to high-quality research, particularly when selection for those behaviours is enculturated into institutions or disciplinary norms. In such cases, this may be sufficient to counteract the negative effects of incentives for publication volume, and so maintain high levels of research quality. If, on the other hand, success is largely determined by publication output or related quantitative metrics, then those who care about quality research should be on high alert. In which direction the scale tips in one’s own field is a critical question for anyone interested in the future of science."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303698773_The_Natural_Selection_of_Bad_Science?fbclid=IwAR1zn5t6CzzuO2hGOYmWOAPYbtZxM5ggEXL8fybNJ0xmUHdjya-1G4j_Iqo