Yeah, sadly. As @PaulL rightly notes, just because you can find it out there doesn’t make it useful.
Researchers (and academics) get paid to publish papers. It’s a business, much like any other. There’s no shame in that (unless it’s dishonest), but it’s essential to recognize the financial incentives involved.
As has been the case for decades, most professors at “prestigious” universities will get tenure (= big career payoff) most easily by publishing in large volumes - far more easily than by being a really great highly-rated teacher on that same prestigious campus.
And what makes a university “prestigious”? Answer: How many papers its professors publish, get cited by authors of other papers, get government grants, alumni financial support, etc. (Sometimes football helps )
In short, publishing papers is a business. It’s a way to make a living. It sells and it gets attention (media) and funding (government, donors, corporate money, etc.).
But in order to publish something, you need to (a) do some kind of research - anything attention-grabbing will suffice - and (b) get headlines to draw attention to the results. uh-oh.
Personally, it seems to me that for every “peer” reviewed paper I actually read through in detail, clearly less than half of them draw conclusions based on meaningful, statistically reliable findings. The rest are based on some variety of bullcrap.
Some books that might be of interest…
“Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre (eye-opening)
“Statistics Done Wrong” by Alex Reinhart (a delightful romp)
“Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis” Alan Agresti (textbook)
“Modern Epidemiology” Timothy Lash (textbook)
All good reads of one kind or another.