[Imnimo]

>However, this might not be the case. Let’s take for example the Fall 2021 Reproducibility Challenge - an event designed to encourage reproducing recently published research from top conferences. Only 43/102 (~%42.16!) of the papers entered into the double-blind peer-review process were accepted – which means that more than half the papers, despite being written with reproduction as a priority, couldn’t actually be reproduced.

I don't think this is what a rejection means. Papers are accepted and rejected from the challenge depending on whether they do a good and thorough job of attempting to replicate the original work, not depending on whether or not they succeed.