It was published in "Scientific Reports", a known low-quality journal. They are not necessary predatory like some of the truly bad journals, e.g., work in this journal still is supposed to pass the "not a low effort triviality and not obviously wrong" check and there are even some really cool things published in this journal. However, I generally take publications in this journal with a significant grain of salt.

Also, just FYI, "Scientific Reports" is not in a specific subfield -- I have published on quantum computing in this journal. That is not too strange, there are plenty of "generalist" journals that are good, but I thought it could still be useful context to know.

The replication crisis won't be over until everyone who matters observes a social obligation to treat any unreplicated paper as interesting fiction.

The first time is data. Only the second is science. Exceptions can be made, but not for this one.

It's totally legit. They made the participants sign an honesty pledge before answering the questionnaire!

No doubt, with pictures of trusted, respected authority figures on the walls in the room they were present in.

Well, it's been hand wavily described on 50 students with similar socio-economical backgrounds how much more replication would you like? There are also some references to statistics terms so it must have statistical power.

Well, it was published today, so you'll have to wait a little while to find out.

Give it a try yourself and let us know