Do a quick web search for Dweck:

1) Results don't replicate.

2) Look up her article in Nature, which claims to be preregistered, then look at the actual preregistration. See the data mismatch.

3) Read her book, and look at the claims in the introduction. Compare those to effect sizes. Are the claims supported or contradicted even by her (already baked) data? By replication studies?

Read the Boaler books and studies. You'll find a lot of fake information too. Not just studies, but also historical stuff (e.g. passages about Einstein and other famous folks).

This is kind of an open secret in the ed research community. Everyone knows about it. Few dare talk in public. You can see outcomes for those who did. And for the general public, it's too technical. That a preregistration comes before data collection isn't something one can explain to a popular audience.

This is the culture at MIT, Brown, Stanford, and I believe many other elite schools. Those three are just where I have first-hand information.

Dweck's a good example too of how the research and/or the media coverage can misunderstand the results. I think it's fair to say that the growth mindset effect is understood as having come from knowledge, i.e. you teach someone about growth mindset and then their performance improves. But my mom, a teacher, tried to apply that idea to her class and the change actually came down to habit. She made her class institute a self-talk habit related to growth mindset and then she reinforced that habit for an entire year. That's an anecdote, not hard science, but it certainly seems like a much more sensible pathway between the concept of growth mindset and then improved results. I wrote up her protocol, which is for third graders, here: https://betterhumans.pub/growth-mindset-is-a-habit-you-want-...