"If a paper does not provide—it its main text or supplements—the necessary detail to enable reproduction, it is not a scientific paper but a press release."
No. That's ridiculous. When a paper doesn't have all of the necessary details to reproduce, then scientists contact the authors, and try to get those details. In nearly all cases, the details are resolved without incident. If the omissions are sufficiently egregious, errata are issued. If they're really, really bad, papers are withdrawn.
If a paper is so old that the original authors are long gone, you look for a citation history, and see who else reproduced the work over the years. Papers that were never reproduced are unlikely to be fruitful.
Mistakes happen and details get omitted, but thankfully, we have lots of ways of working around those mistakes. Nobody -- except for armchair scientists -- assumes that scientific knowledge is communicated exclusively by the methods sections of publications.
"This article rebuts your assertion. In most of the cases, the details were not resolved despite great effort and expense."
No, you're just misinterpreting it. They stopped pursuing a number of papers after they discovered they couldn't possibly reproduce them all with their tiny budget.
Nobody said it was cheap to reproduce science, just that it's possible.
"I’m not a scientist, but I advise (without compensation) a grant-writing board. But okay."
It sounds like you're unqualified to be doing that job, then.
No. That's ridiculous. When a paper doesn't have all of the necessary details to reproduce, then scientists contact the authors, and try to get those details. In nearly all cases, the details are resolved without incident. If the omissions are sufficiently egregious, errata are issued. If they're really, really bad, papers are withdrawn.
If a paper is so old that the original authors are long gone, you look for a citation history, and see who else reproduced the work over the years. Papers that were never reproduced are unlikely to be fruitful.
Mistakes happen and details get omitted, but thankfully, we have lots of ways of working around those mistakes. Nobody -- except for armchair scientists -- assumes that scientific knowledge is communicated exclusively by the methods sections of publications.