I didn't say it was a one-off. But 150 papers is, to a first approximation, a one-off of all the science done in a given year. We produce millions of journal articles every year.
There's something to be said about a defense of this that doesn't account for random sampling.
Assuming that they did a proper sample of said papers, that implies that for whatever domain they sampled, 26% is likely a decent estimate of actual issues. Increasing the scale doesn't make a proportional estimate any better.
