I think you've misunderstood what's gone on here. The studies are considered "sufficient" only so far as they've passed the initial peer-review process; that is, they were looked over for types, basic statistical mistakes, and consistency in their own conclusions. That isn't an indication that their conclusions are correct at all. What science does next is they do replications, compare the conclusions to our larger framework of knowledge, then see what findings stick and what need more work or need to be scrapped. The rejection of these psi results isn't a divergence from typical standard practice, it's just what happens with all scientific research - it's just that the psi results don't stand up to scrutiny.
Peer review is much more than that. You're probably right in this case though since parapsychology papers tend to get published in crappy journals with low standards.I think you've misunderstood what's gone on here. The studies are considered "sufficient" only so far as they've passed the initial peer-review process; that is, they were looked over for types, basic statistical mistakes, and consistency in their own conclusions. That isn't an indication that their conclusions are correct at all.