[costigan]

I think you misread the article slightly. The 26% of zombie papers are inside the 44% of papers that contained at least some flawed data. Look at the figure just below this quote where the blue bar, indicating papers he thought were ok, covers more than 50%.

[crazygringo]

Which, ironically, just shows how easy it is to make mistakes not just in complicated statistical methods, but in basic interpretation of what numbers mean in the first place.

[SubiculumCode]

not to mention that everyone here forgets to mention that the majority of submitted papers with suspected fraud came from countries with known issues with fraudulent science publishing. e.g. China. The USA, for example, looked much better (although not perfect) at 6% zombie.