While I'm very happy to see more attempts at replication, I am quite shocked to hear the grandstanding that "reproducability is not as much of a problem".

Seen as a meta-experiment it is incredibly weak, with a tiny, biased sample. High-profile results that have a simple enough procedure so they can be combined.

As such, it can't get even close to support what they're (whoever -they- actually is, it may not be the actual researchers) trying to claim. What about less high-profile stuff? What about more complex setups? If 20% of your most rock-solid results are not reproducible, I wouldn't be so quick to celebrate. Imagine if 20% of basic physics or maths results weren't actually true...