I think science is too big a thing to have a small set of "core features", and the question of how to usefully define "honesty" in a scientific context is another big topic, but reading about "bullshit" (the term of art that has its own literature, not the colloquialism) is a good place to start thinking about it.
I would suggest that fraud is one of the rarest types of dishonesty, because people who are both smart and dishonest have less risky ways to proceed, and that such people are very glad fraud exists, because it misdirects attention away from their arguably more damaging and prevalent methods. Feynman has a passage about how honesty in science is more a state of mind, which I agree with. But really, the techniques to be dishonest with low risk are the same in science, journalism, politics, and business.
My field isn't sociology of science though; these are just views from the genomics trenches.
In your message I observe, very careful criticism, uncalled praise, admission and defense of a system that excludes most criticism...
The middle paragraph includes my sincere response that a system where discovery is rewarded, failure forgiven, and dishonesty punished is ideally suited to the mission of science.
So I was left wondering if the OP would expand on what their thoughts were about the interesting consequences.
This is fantastic insight and I'd like to thank you for sharing it with our group.
Would you agree that the model of rewards for correctness and penalization only in the case of fraud is the core feature of science? And what separates it from business or politics where being an honest failure is worse than being dishonest but successful?
Again, this is a great post, and I think you have a fantastic future in the sociology of science!