The 'results' here isn't about confirming or rejecting a hypothesis, it's about analyzing data for a strength of effect, which seems fair enough.

> The researchers gave scientist-participants one of two data sets and an accompanying research question: either “To what extent is the growth of nestling blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) influenced by competition with siblings?” or “How does grass cover influence Eucalyptus spp. seedling recruitment?”

What follows is that the variations in choices of how the data is analyzed gives a wide range of 'strengths' that when averaged is not significant, or extreme and opposing individual strength results. What this is highlighting is that the data analysis (even for identically reproduced data) is a source of irreproducibility meaning that it itself needs to be explicit and validated.