An interesting set of observations and this is an important area for researchers to know about.

I hate to be pedantic, but: while you give CIs on the charts of the individual observations per journal, you don't suggest any effect size or prospective power for the effect you're claiming: that editorial policy makes a difference to the statistical quality of articles.

With N = 7, I can understand that it's not very useful to try to fit a statistical model, and this work is presumably intended to be suggestive rather than conclusive. But I think it's fair to ask how much confidence you have in the following conclusions:

journal editorial policy...may be highly influential on the statistical practices published
and
editorial policy and author guidelines may be effective in achieving improvement in researchers' statistical practices

...as well as the more attention-grabbing suggestion that most published articles have a high probability of being false. How high? How sure are you?

Since there's an argument that attention-seeking is one of the likely influences on journals not reporting statistical quality of their results, it's probably worth being very clear on the status of your own most visible claims.

Despite this comment, it's good work and I hope to see more of this type of meta-analysis to help all researchers to better understand the quality of the body of research we work with.