I'm wondering:
(1)Is it possible to get published in a peer-reviewed place even when the result(s) of the experiment is wrong?
e.g. the peer reviewer somehow missed the erroneous result(s).
(2)Is there actually a "bad" published paper? I've heard a lot of of these "there are so many rubbish published papers", but I don't know what it actually means.

1. Yes. It shouldn't happen but it does. Sometimes if errors are found the paper may be retracted (some examples here:
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ )
2. Yes there are. An important part of research training is learning to critically appraise the literature. If you're unsure how to go about this, see if your uni/grad school has any courses. Be aware that there are some general 'good' and 'bad' practices, but there may also be issues specific to your field.

1. Even publication that helps one to receive nobel prize can be incorrect.

2. There is some truth in this advice on publication:

If you want to get published, then heed this advice:
Cite your friends at least once and your enemies twice,
Cite the editor three times, yourself at least four,
And write in a style that's intended to bore.
If you want to get published, here's what you must do
Above all: don't come up with anything new. J.E.C.

2. Yes there are lots of bad papers (or in fairness, not great papers!) We set up a jounral club that essentially consists of us ripping papers to pieces! It sometimes seems to me that if your sample size is big then you can get away with publishing any old rubbish! (or maybe I'm bitter becasue I'm struggling to get my small sample size papers accepted!)

Thanks for the replies.

In your own opinion, what does a bad paper mean?

@Meaninginlife:
If you want to get published, then heed this advice:
Cite your friends at least once and your enemies twice,
Cite the editor three times, yourself at least four,
And write in a style that's intended to bore.
If you want to get published, here's what you must do
Above all: don't come up with anything new. J.E.C.

Why do you think this advice is good?

Do you mean:
1. How do you decide a paper is 'bad'?
or
2. What are the implications of having 'bad' papers that have passed peer review?

I meant the first one; but how about we just go for both : )

Well I'd strongly recommend googling 'critical appraisal of scientific literature' to get a more in depth perspective, but in brief, there are lots of ways a paper/study can be bad e.g.
- if it has a poorly defined question
- if it uses an inappropriate method to test the hypothesis
- if the method has been incorrectly applied
- if the interpretation wildly overstates the importance of the findings
- if the results are misinterpreted
- if the stats are manipulated to try and salvage something from the wreckage of a poor study or one which would be more honestly reported as negative.
- if it ignores the current understanding of the topic

Some of those occur more rarely than others. I'd say over/mis-interpretation of the results might be the most common.

On 2, it might stop you getting a job. Bad papers tend to be where the research has been rushed or salami sliced so finely that there is lots of overlap between papers. Quantity does not trump quality in the UK because of the way the REF works. It's your best papers that count, and so that's what employers look for. if they see numerous publications but none of them are particularly good, then it counts against you.

>In your own opinion, what does a bad paper mean?
Frankly speaking, it could mean your friend was unhappy when you broke the news that you managed to publish a paper. Your friends were trying to suggest your paper is not good enough? Just a guess.

>Cite your friends at least once and your enemies twice,
It is good to cite our friends.
But if we cite our enemies twice, our enemies might be happier and become our friends.
Note that our enemies could be the reviewer of the paper.

>Cite the editor three times, yourself at least four,
If the editor's papers are cited, he may choose some *good* reviewer for your paper.
When your paper is published, the editor's papers are cited, and it will improve his ratings.

>And write in a style that's intended to bore.
Your mistakes in the paper will be overlooked.

>Above all: don't come up with anything new. J.E.C.
Reviewer might not understand new idea; so your paper could be rejected.
Sometimes, new idea can cause previous ideas to appear stupid.
So, reviewer purposely rejects this paper.