> The vast majority of irreproducible papers aren't detectible as irreproducible at time of publication. They look fine, and many actually are fine. They just don't reproduce. That's an expected outcome in science.

This is not entirely true. A power analysis is how you determine reproducibility, and researchers should be doing it before they begin collecting data. Reviewers can do it post-hoc with assumptions about the expected effect size (which might come from similar studies). False positives produce inflated effect sizes, so if a result is marginally significant but shows a large effect, that is a good heuristic the result will not reproduce.