Of course there are lots. There's a bucket-load of papers get published every year, and sometimes reviewers are in a hurry too and miss things. A miniscule number of papers ever replicated, and replication studies regularly find reproducability rates of less than 50%.
Fortunately, critical thought does not stop at the point of publication. When researchers read each other's papers they (hopefully) do not blindly assume them to be bug-free.
I think there's a general popular misunderstanding of the process of science as it is generally practiced.
A single paper isn't as meaningful as you might think. It's more like an interesting blog post. You might use it as a starting point for your own investigation.
A single paper does not represent "the truth" as we currently understand it. For that you need to have a broad scientific consensus.
You might be able to get a better understanding of that from review papers citing recent advances in the field. Or from attending conferences/reading a broad range of papers yourself.
Fortunately, critical thought does not stop at the point of publication. When researchers read each other's papers they (hopefully) do not blindly assume them to be bug-free.